BV  600  .D3  1905 

Dargan,  Edwin  Charles.  1852 

1930. 
Ecclesiology 


ECCLESIOLOGY 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  CHURCHES 


SECOND  AND  CAREFULLY  REVISED  EDITION 


BY 


EDWIN   CHARLES  DARGAN,   D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Homiletics  and  Ecclesiology  in  the  Southern 
Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  Louisville,  Ky.      Author 

of  A  HISTORY  OF  PREACHING.    THE  DOC- 
TRINES OF  OUR  FAITH,  Etc. 


LOUISVILLE.  KY. 

CHARLES  T.  DEARING. 

1905. 


COPYRIGHT  1897,  1905, 
By  EDWIN  C.  DARGAN. 


PREFACE. 


The  first  edition  of  this  work  appeared  in  1897. 
It  was  prepared  primarily  as  a  text-book  for  the 
author's  own  nse  with  his  class  in  Ecclesiolooy,  and 
has  been  so  used  continuously  since  then.  Constant 
employment  in  the  class  room,  as  well  as  the  valued 
criticism  of  friends,  has  pointed  out  many  minor 
errors  both  in  statement  and  style.  The  first  edition 
was  prepared  hastily  (by  dictation  to  a  stenog- 
rapher) from  the  author's  lecture  notes,  and  it  bore 
the  marks  of  that  method  of  composition. 

The  present  edition  has  been  most  carefully  re- 
vised, in  fact  almost  rewritten ;  and  while  the 
author  has  not  seen  reason  to  alter  his  opinions  on 
any  essential  points,  there  has  been  some  modifica- 
tion of  language  here  and  there  in  the  interest  of 
clearer  statement  and  more  careful  expression.  A 
few  chapters  have  been  added,  a  few  omitted,  all  has 
been  condensed ;  so  that  the  bulk  of  the  present  edi- 
tion is  not  so  great  as  that  of  the  former. 

In  its  improved  form  the  author  again  submits  his 
work  to  the  judgment  of  his  brethren,  and  to  the  use 
of  his  students,  in  the  hope  that  it  may  prove  useful 
to  the  cause  of  truth,  and.  serve  the  best  interests  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God. 

The  two  following  paragraphs  are  quoted  from  the 
preface  to  the  first  edition : 

*'The  bibliography  at  the  end  of  the  book  will  show 
5 


the  principal  sources  from  which  help  has  been  de- 
rived. Originality  in  this  field  is  impossible,  and 
any  claim  to  it  must  be  absurd.  I  have  studied  many 
books  and  parts  of  books  in  preparing  these  chapters, 
but  I  have  honestly  tried  to  form  my  own  opinions, 
and  to  express  them  in  my  own  way.  Where  I  have 
consciously  and  directly  borrowed  either  thought  or 
language,  I  have  made  acknowledgment  in  the  text 
or  notes;  but  it  may  easily  be  that,  here  and  there, 
either  from  inadvertence  or  lapse  of  memory,  I  have 
failed  to  do  so." 

"It  is  my  earnest  hope  and  prayer  that  the  book 
may  do  good.  While  necessarily  controversial,  it 
carries  no  ill-will  toward  those  who  do  not  hold  the 
Baptist  faith ;  and  members  of  other  denominations, 
who  may  chance  to  read  it  are  respectfully  invited 
to  give  candid  consideration  to  this  restatement  of 
views  commonly  held  among  Baptists.  To  my  Bap- 
tist brethren  I  trust  the  book  may  be  of  some  service 
in  promoting  the  great  work  of  the  churches  of  our 
own  faith  and  order."  E.  C.  D. 

Louisville^  Ky.,  Sept.,  1905. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PACE. 

Preface 5 

Introduction 11 

PART  I. 
POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

CHAPTER  1. 
Some  Preliminary  Considerations 17 

CHAPTER  II. 
Church  Polity  in  the  New  Testament— The  word  Ecclesia.  37 

CHAPTER  III. 

Church    Polity   in  the  New   Testament— Character   and 
Functions  of  the  Churches 55 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Church  Polity  in  the  New   Testament— Officers  of    the 
Churches 70 

CHAPTER  V. 

Church    Polity  in  the  New  Testament— Officers  of    the 
Churches  (Continued) 84 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Church  Polity  in  the  New  Testament — Light  from  Out- 
aide  Sources 98 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Church  Polity  in  History— Developments  to  the  Refor- 
mation   116 

7 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Church  Polity  in  History— Developments  since  the  Ref- 
ormation   133 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Church  Polity  in  History— Progress  of  Baptist  Principles.  150 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Baptist  Churches  of  To-day — Their  Conformity   to 
the  New  Testament 166 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Baptist  Churches  of  To-day — Their  Organization. .  .186 

CHAPTER  XII. 
The  Baptist  Churches  of  To-day — Advisory  Councils 204 

CHAPTER  Xtll. 

The  Baptist  Churches  of   To-day— Their   Mutual   Rela- 
tions   218 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Baptist  Churches  of  To-day— Their  Position   as   to 
Christian  Union 232 

CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Baptist  Churches  of  To-day— Their  Relation  to  Civil 
Government 252 


PART  II. 
ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

CHAPTER  I. 
The  Christian  Ordinances 272 

CHAPTER  11. 
The  Obi  igation  of  Baptism • 284 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Act  of  Baptism — Argument  from  the  Meaning  of  the 
Word 293 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Act  of  Baptism — Argument  from  History 308 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Act  of  Baptism — Argument  from  Concession 331 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Act  of  Baptism — Objections  to  Immersion 344 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Agent  in  Baptism — Scripture  and  History 360 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Agent  in  Baptism — The  Baptist  Problem 380 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Recipients  of  Baptism — The  Teaching  of  Scripture.  .396 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Recipients  of  Baptism — Historical  Sketch 411 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The   Recipients  of  Baptism — Arguments  for  and  against 
Infant  Baptism 435 

CHAPTER  XII. 
The  Significance  of  Baptism . .  465 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
The  Lord's  Supper  in  Scripture 484 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Lord's  Supper  in  History 501 

9 


CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Lord's  Supper  in  the  Churches SIQ- 

PART  III. 
WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Church  as  a  Working-  Force  in  Society  and  the  King- 
dom   535 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Church  Working  for  Itself 551 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Evangelistic  Work  of    the  Church— Soul   Winning 
and  Missions 571 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The   Humanitarian   Work  of   the   Church — Education — 
Charity — Reform 585- 

CHAPTER  V. 
Worship  of  the  Churches— Scripture  Teaching 61T 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Worship  of  the  Churches— Historical  Sketch 63T 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Worship  of  the  Churches — Its  Place  in  Modern  Church 
Life 661 

Conclusion 677 

Bibliography 

Scripture  Index 

General  Index 


10 


INTRODUCTION. 


1.  Ecclesiology  is  the  doctrine,  or  study,  of  the 
church  in  its  constitution,  ordinances  and  activities, 
the  last  including  both  work  and  worship.  The  rela- 
tion of  the  study  to  the  other  branches  of  Theolo- 
gical Discipline  is  vital.  Ecclesiology  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  topic  under  the  general  subject  of 
Sj'steniatic  Theology,  and  is  often  so  treated.  But 
it  has  equally  manifest  and  important  relations  to 
Biblical  (or  Exegetical)  Theology,  to  Historical 
Theology  (Church  History,  History  of  Doctrine), 
and  to  Practical  Theology  (Homiletics,  Pastoral 
Duties).  The  breadth  and  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject, however,  justify,  if  they  do  not  require, 
separate  treatment  and  a  fuller  discussion  than 
could  be  given  to  it  in  treatises  on  the  more  general 
subjects  under  which  it  would  fall  only  as  a  topic. 

2.  The  subject  of  Ecclesiology  is  one  of  surpass- 
ing interest  and  moment.  JThe  great  debates  that 
have  been  and  still  are  going  on  in  the  world  on 
the  questions  of  the  constitution  and  ordinances 
of  the  church  demand  consideration  from  the  well- 
informed  theologian.  The  remarkable  and  ap- 
parently increasing  attention  that  is  paid  in  our 
times  to  activity  in  all  the  varied  methods  of  church 
work,  together  with  the  vast  interest  of  the  age  in 
social  problems,  makes  it  necessar}-  that  the  i)astor 
and  preacher  should  give  careful  study  to  church 
work  in  all  its  phases  and  relations;  nor  shinild  the 

11 


weighty  matter  of  worship  escape  his  thoughtful  and 
reverential  notice.  Neglect  of  the  worship  of  God, 
even  on  the  part  of  professing  Christian  people,  is  a 
painful  phenomenon  of  our  times.  The  earnest 
pastor  of  today  faces  no  more  momentous  question 
than  that  of  restoring  worship  to  its  rightful  place 
in  the  thought  and  life  of  his  people. 

3.  The  proper  method  of  study  for  Ecclesiology  is 
a  combination  of  the  scriptural,  historical  and 
practical,  (a)  The  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  as 
being  both  originative  and  authoritative,  should  be 
carefully  investigated  and  clearly  and  unflinchingly 
set  forth.  As  far  as  possible  both  the  developments 
of  history  and  existing  institutions  should  be  left 
out  of  the  account,  and  the  Biblical  data,  with  in- 
ferences from  these,  should  be  exclusively  used  in 
discovering  and  presenting  just  what  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  teach  as  to  the  church  and  its 
various  elements  of  life  and  action,  (b)  Proceeding 
from  this  scriptural  basis  the  student  should  pur- 
sue the  development  of  church  organization  and  life 
through  the  history  of  Christianity,  bearing  well  in 
mind  the  constant  changes  both  in  ecclesiastical  cus- 
toms and  in  the  significance  of  ecclesiastical  terms. 
(c)  At  last  when  the  present  time  is  reached  the 
student  should  know  how  to  criticise  and  compare 
existing  institutions  in  the  light  both  of  their  scrip- 
tural origin  and  their  historic  evolution,  and  thus 
be  able  to  determine  for  himself  how  far  the  church 
constitutions  with  which  he  is  familiar  accord  with 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible— or,  to  speak  more  defi- 
nitely, with  the  intentions  of  the  divine  Founder  of 
Christianity. 

12 


4.  The  point  of  view  occupied  by  the  investigator 
is  of  prime  moment.  Few,  if  any,  can  take  up  the 
study  of  the  church  without  biases  and  preposses- 
sions which  inevitably  influence  the  judgment,  (a) 
The  influence  of  present-day  conditions,  modes  of 
thought  and  use  of  terms  is  both  subtle  and  power- 
ful. For  exami)le,  when  we  say  "church"  or  'bishop" 
we  naturally  and  almost  inevitably  have  first  in 
mind  the  things  which  those  terms  stand  for  in  the 
language  of  today  rather  than  in  that  of  whafever 
period  we  may  at  the  time  be  studying.  The  best 
cure  for  this  is  a  thorough  knowledge  of  history  and 
a  constant  use  of  the  historic  imagination,  (b)  An- 
other strong  bias  is  that  of  the  sect  or  denomina- 
tion. Very  many  students  prosecute  this  study 
with  their  minds  already  made  up  in  favor  of  the 
institutions  of  the  church  or  sect  to  which  they 
themselves  belong,  and  their  purpose  is  largely  po- 
lemical or  apologetic.  It  is  amusing  to  observe  how 
all  are  quite  ready  to  see  this  in  their  opponents  and 
are  curiously  unconscious  of -it  in  themselves.  Now 
one  should  endeavor  to  keep  from  being  unduly  in- 
fluenced by  his  previously  formed  and  firmly  held 
opinions,  but  it  is  utterly  impossible  and  in  great 
degree  undesirable  to  lay  them  entirely  aside  in  the 
study  of  any  subject.  It  may  be  reasonably  (lues- 
tioned  if  the  absolutely  impartial  mind  does  or  can 
exist.  At  the  same  time  we  must  remember  that  some 
degree  of  partiality  may  be  a  stimulus  to  investiga- 
tion, and  so  result  in  the  discovery  of  truth  rather 
than  in  the  distortion  of  it.  We  must  not  commit 
the  absurdity  of  claiming  to  be  wholly  free  from  a 
preference  for  our  own  denominational   views,   nor 

13 


at  the  same  time  must  we  allow  these  to  hinder  us 
from  seeing  and  frankly  acknowledging  the  truth 
from  whatever  quarter  it  may  come  with  sufficient 
credentials,  (c)  Still  another  bias  is  that  of  his- 
torical or  critical  prepossession.  A  man  may  be 
as  thoroughly  sectarian,  dogmatic  and  intolerant  in 
favor  of  his  theory  as  of  his  church.  Unhappily 
neither  scholars  nor  scientists  are  immune  of  preju- 
dice, and  in  the  sphere  of  ecclesiology  as  well  as  in 
others  the  "scientific"  historian  or  critic  has  been 
known  to  hold  the  advocate's  brief,  instead  of  de- 
livering the  judge's  opinion. 

Recognizing  the  extreme  difficulty,  not  to  say  im- 
possibility, of  escaping  wholly  from  one  or  more  of 
these  biases  or  prepossesions  we  should  be  con- 
stantly on  guard  both  toward  ourselves  and  others. 
We  must  not  claim  to  be  infallible  ourselves,  and  we 
cannot  allow  it  in  others.  Let  us  be  fair.  Call  it  a 
balancing  of  accounts,  one  against  the  other,  and 
let  us  seek  earnestly  to  know  the  truth. 

5.  The  plan  of  the  present  work  is  to  study  the 
church  in  the  threefold  light  of  Scripture,  history 
and  the  conditions  and  needs  of  the  present  time. 
Each  element  of  the  life  of  the  church  is  to  be  con- 
sidered under  these  three  heads,  as  far  as  may  be 
necessary  or  appropriate  in  each  case.  It  is  held 
to  be  of  the  first  importance  to  ascertain  as  clearly 
and  present  as  fully  as  possible  the  teachings  of 
God's  word  as  to  every  department  of  the  subject. 
But  the  historical  development  of  church  organiza- 
tion and  life  will  receive  careful  attention;  and  the 
application  of  both  Scripture  doctrine  and  historic 
precedent  to  the  church  life  and  problems  of  the 

1-4 


present  age  will  also  have  earnest  consideration. 
In  Part  I.  the  Polity  of  the  Church  will  be  so 
studied;  in  Part  II.  the  Ordinances  of  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper;  and  in  Part  III.  the  Activities  of 
the  Church,  including  both  its  Work  in  all  phases, 
and  its  Worship. 


15 


16  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  I. 

PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS. 

I.  Definitions  and  explanations. 

1.  Church  Polity  defined. 

2.  Various  meanings  of  the  word  "church." 

3.  '^'Polity"  the  preferable  term. 

II.  Various  forms  of  Church  Polity. 

1.  The  Baptist  view. 

(1)  As  to  the  nature  of  the  church. 

(2)  As  to  the  government  of  the  church. 

2.  The  opposing  views.    As  based  on — 

(1)  Church  authority, 

(2)  Expedienc}^ 

(3)  Scripture. 

III.  Value  of  the  study  of  Church  Polity. 

1.  In  general. 

(1)  A  question  of  religious  interest. 

(2)  A  subject  of  historic  debate. 

(3)  Important  to  know  the  mind  of  Christ. 

2.  More  particularly. 

(1)  Polity'  related  to  doctrine  and  life. 

(2)  Much  ignorance  on  the  subject. 

3.  Especially  for  Baptists. 

(1)  In  the  light  of  their  past. 

(2)  In  the  light  of  their  present. 

(3)  In  the  light  of  their  future. 


PART  FIRST. 


POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

SOME    PRELIMINARY   CONSIDERATIONS. 

Church  polity  may  be  defined  as  the  method  of  or- 
ganization and  rule  under  which  a  church,  or  group 
of  churches,  lives  and  acts.  It  will  be  necessary  then 
to  give  separate  attention  to  the  two  words  which 
go  to  make  up  the  naming  of  our  subject — ''church" 
and  "polity."  Here  we  consider  the  meaning  of  the 
word  ''church"  as  determined  by  its  etymology  and 
its  past  and  present  use.  Hereafter,  and  more  par- 
ticularly, the  usage  of  the  New  Testament  will  be 
discussed. 

The  English  word  "church"  finds  its  nearest  neigh- 
bor and  sister  in  the  Scotch  "kirk,"  and  next  to  that 
its  cousin  in  the  German  "kirche."  If  it  would  find 
its  mother  it  would  look  to  the  old  Saxon  "circe," 
"cirice"  or  "cyrace."  It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that 
all  these  are  different  forms  of  the  same  word. 
\Yhence  did  it  come?  Almost  certainly  from  the 
Greek  KvpiaKov  (Jiurialcon) .  This  word,  to  KvpiaKov 
{to  kuriakon),  was  used  by  the  Greek  Christians  to 
designate  the  house  of  Avorship,  and  it  seems  clear 
that  the  Goths,  and  other  Teutonic  races,  got  the 


18  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

word,  as  they  got  their  first  Iviiowledge  of  Christian- 
ity, from  the  Greek  Christians.*  Now  the  word 
KvptaKov  {kiirialcoii)  is  simply  the  adjectiv'e  neuter 
from  Kvpiof  {Icurios),  Lord,  and  means  that  which  is 
the  Lord's,  that  is.  the  Lord's  place,  the  Lord's  house. 
This  adjective  is  found  in  the  New  Testament, 
though  not  with  reference  to  a  place.  [The  pas- 
sages are  in  1  Cor.  11 :20,  in  connection  with  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  in  Rev.  1:10,  the  Lord's  day.] 
In  early  Greek  Christian  literature  the  neuter  ad- 
jective with  the  article  came  to  be  applied  to  the 
house  of  worship.  In  usage  the  transition  was 
easy  from  the  building  to  the  assembly  which  wor- 
shiped in  the  building.  Thus  the  word  ^'church" 
literally  means  the  Lord's  place,  or  the  Lord's  house^ 
and  from  that  it  has  been  extended  to  all  the  various 
significations  which  it  has  acquired  in  the  progress 
of  language. 

But  interesting,  as  its  etymology  is,  the  uses  of 
the  word  in  our  own  day  chief!}'  concern  us  here. 
Of  these  uses  we  may  notice  at  least  five:  (1)  A 
particular  body  of  Christians  organized  for  re- 
ligious purposes  and  commonly  meeting  in  one  place 
for  worship.  This  is  the  "local  church,"  and  we 
shall  hereafter  see  that  this  is  the  prevailing  use  of 
the  Greek  word  e/cKXijcria  (ecclcsia)  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. (2)  The  general  body,  or  sum  total,  of 
Christians,  conceived  of  in  the  largest  inclusive 
sense,  or  partially  as  represented  in  those  under 
consideration  at  the  time.     This  is  the  "universal 

*Gieseler's  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  I,  Introduction, 
§  I,  note.  Skeat's  Etymological  Dictionary,  second ed.,s  v. 
church. 


rUELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS,  19 

chnrf'h."  a  sense  of  the  word  which  occurs  in  a  few 
passai>es  in  the  New  Testament.  As  we  shall  see 
these  two  uses  embrace  all  the  New  Testament  mean- 
inji's  of  the  word  ccclrsia,  or  congregation.  (3)  The 
building  where  the  local  assembly  meets  for  wor- 
ship or  other  purposes.  This  does  not  occur  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  as  we  have  seen  is  the  original 
meaning  of  kiiriakon,  "church,''  and  arose  very  early 
in  Christian  history.  (4)  A  body  or  sect  or  denomi- 
nation of  Christians  having  the  same  general  doc- 
trines, organization  and  history,  including  and  con- 
trolling local  bodies  of  the  same  faith  and  order. 
This  use  of  the  word  is  not  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  very  seldom  in  the  times  preceding  the 
Reformation.  It  is  distinctly  a  modern  usage  aris- 
ing from  the  divisions  of  Christians.  It  is  not  ac- 
cepted by  all.  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  and 
others  who  hold  to  the  independency  of  the  local 
churches  do  not  designate  any  one  of  their  co-opera- 
tive bodies  as  a  ''church."  nor  call  their  total  mem- 
bership by  that  term,  but  reserve  it  to  describe  their 
local  bodies.  (5)  A  group  of  secondary  and  derived 
meanings,  more  or  less  vague,  and  growing  out  of 
the  preceding,  may  be  put  together:  (a)  From  the 
local  sense,  as  in  such  phrases  as  ''a  member  of  the 
church,"  ''going  to  church,''  and  the  adjective  uses, 
as,  "church  meeting,"  "church  affairs,"  etc.  (b) 
From  the  general  sense,  as  "the  Church,"  meaning 
the  whole  unorganized  mass  of  Christians,  "church 
and  state,"  "church  history,"  "church  enterprises," 
^'church  people,''  and  the  like,  (c)  Somewhat  waver- 
ing between  the  two,  as  "church  order,"  ''church 
polity,"  etc. 


20  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  phrase,  "church 
polity."  Various  terms  have  been  employed  to  set 
forth  the  thing  meant  by  this  expression.  Some- 
times it  is  called  ''church  government"  to  express 
the  notion  of  authority  or  regulation  exercised  in 
or  upon  a  church,  or  churches.  Some  prefer  the 
phrase,  "church  order"  to  denote  the  arrangements 
by  which  churches  give  expression  to  their  organiza- 
tion, life  and  work.  Others  prefer  the  terms  "or- 
ganization," or  "constitution,"  meaning  the  system 
of  rules,  or  method  by  which  the  activities  of  a 
church  are  directed.  In  this  treatise,  the  term 
"church  polity"  is  preferred,  as  it  may  be  extended 
to  include  all  the  rest.  Sometimes,  however,  the 
others  will  be  employed  for  variety  as  being  prac- 
tically synonymous  with  "polity." 

Every  society  of  believers  in  Christ,  whether  large 
or  small,  which  calls  itself  a  church  is,  by  virtue  of 
its  being  a  body,  somehow  organized  and  governed. 
In  calling  themselves  churches  of  Christ,  these  va- 
rious bodies  all  virtually  claim  in  some  sense  the 
warrant  of  Christ's  authority  for  their  existence 
and  their  polity ;  yet,  among  them  we  find  a  great 
and  confusing  variety  of  organization  and  govern- 
ment. Even  classification  is  somewhat  difficult. 
The  books  usually  classify  the  different  forms  of 
polity  under  three:  prelatical,  presbyterial  and  con- 
gregational. The  prelatical  churches  are  those 
which  are  governed  by  prelates,  or  the  clergy,  or  the 
ministry,  usually  called  bishops;  hence,  the  adject- 
ive "episcopal"  is  sometimes  used  instead  of  "pre- 
latical." The  manifest  objection  to  this  general 
term  is  that  it  would  include  such  totallv  different 


PRELIMIXARY  CONSIDERATIONS.  21 

bodies  as  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Methodist 
Churches.  The  presbyterial  churches  are  thosse  which 
are  governed  by  elders,  and  there  is  more  unity  and 
definiteness  in  this  designation  than  in  the  first. 
The  congregational  bodies  are  those  in  which  each 
separate  congregation  governs  itself  without  refer- 
ence to  higher  organizations.  Of  course  the  Baptist 
churches  belong  under  this  designation,  as  well  as 
those  which  bear  the  denominational  name  of  Con- 
gregationalists.  In  addition  to  these  two  great  rep- 
resentatives of  this  class  there  are  a  good  many 
smaller  bodies  which  adopt  the  congregational 
polity.  While  mis  general  classification  has  some 
merits,  it  seems  to  be  better  for  our  purposes  as 
Baptists  to  consider  the  matter  of  church  polity 
from  our  own  point  of  view;  to  explain  first  the 
principles  which  prevail  among  Baptist  churches, 
and  then  to  discuss  the  opposing  views,  with  special 
reference  to  the  ground  upon  which  such  opposition 
is  based. 

The  view  commonly  held  among  Baptists  as  to 
the  church  may  be  found  in  the  confessions  of  faith 
put  forth  at  various  times  by  Baptist  bodies,  and 
also  in  numerous  treatises  by  Baptist  writers  upon 
this  subject.  The  main  points  may  be  summarized 
somewhat  as  follows:  There  are,  strictly  speaking, 
only  two  correct  and  scriptural  meanings  of  the 
word  "church,"  that  is,  the  local  congregation,  and 
what  is  commonly  called  the  church  universal.  The 
language  of  the  Baptist  Confession  of  1689,  known 
in  this  country  as  the  Philadelphia  Confession,  in 
regard  to  the  church  universal  is  as  follows:  ''The 
catholic,  or  universal  church  which    (with  respect 


22  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

to  the  internal  work  of  the  Spirit  and  truth  of 
grace)  may  be  called  invisible,  consists  of  the  whole 
number  of  the  elect,  that  have  been,  are  and  shall  be 
gathered  into  one  under  Christ  the  head  thereof: 
and  is  the  spouse,  the  body,  the  fullness  of  him  that 
filleth  all  in  all."  This  general  aggregate  of  all  true 
Christians  is  not  an  organized  body.  It  is,  as  Dr. 
Broadus  expresses  it,  "An  ideal  assembly."*  Conse- 
quently, the  theory  of  church  polity  as  understood 
by  Baptists  does  not  apply  to  the  church  universal 
or  invisible.  Church  polity  properly  understood  re- 
fers only  to  the  organization  of  the  local  churches 
and  their  relation  to  other  bodies.  A  church,  then, 
in  the  Baptist  view  of  the  matter,  is  a  local  body  or 
society  of  baptized  believers  in  Christ,  where  the 
true  worship  of  God  is  observed,  the  word  of  God  is 
preached  and  the  ordinances  of  the  New  Testament 
are  properly  administered.  In  the  New  Hampshire 
Confession,  which  was  drawn  up  by  the  Rev.  John 
Newton  Brown  about  the  year  1833,  this  view  of  the 
church  is  set  forth  in  the  following  language:  "We 
believe  that  a  visible  church  of  Christ  is  a  congrega- 
tion of  baptized  believers  associated  by  covenant  in 
the  faith  and  fellowship  of  the  gospel;  observing 
the  ordinances  of  Christ;  governed  by  his  laws,  and 
exercising  the  gifts,  rights  and  privileges  invested 
in  them  by  his  word ;  that  its  only  scriptural  ofiflcers 
are  bishops,  or  pastors,  and  deacons,  whose  quali- 
fications, claims  and  duties  are  defined  in  the  Epis- 
tles to  Timothy  and  Titus."  The  view  of  the  church 
set  forth  in  the  fundamental  articles  of  belief 
adopted  for  the  Southern  Baptist  Theological  Semi- 
*Commentary  on  Matthew,  chap.  16:18. 


PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS.  23 

nary  aiul  drawn  up  by  the  revered  Dr.  Basil  Manly, 
Jr.,  is  as  follows:  ''The  Lord  Jesus  is  the  Head  of 
the  church,  which  is  composed  of  all  his  true  disci- 
ples, and  in  Him  is  invested  all  supreme  power  for 
its  government.  According  to  his  commandment, 
Christians  are  to  associate  themselves  into  par- 
ticular societies  or  churches;  and  to  each  of  these 
churches  he  hath  given  needful  authority  for  ad- 
ministering that  order,  discipline  and  worship 
which  he  hath  appointed.  The  regular  officers  of  a 
church  are  bishops  or  elders,  and  deacons." 

As  to  the  government  of  the  church  the  following 
views  are  commonly  accepted  among  the  Baptists. 
In  regard  to  external  government  these  local  bodies 
own  no  earthly  superior.  Their  allegiance  and  re- 
sponsibility are  directly  and  only  to  Christ  the  great 
Head  of  the  church ;  and  their  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice is  the  word  of  God  and  that  alone;  yet,  these 
churches  as  holding  a  common  faith  are  closely  re- 
lated to  each  other  and  may  unite  for  the  further- 
ance of  their  common  aims,  but  not  so  as  to  form 
a  hierarchy,  or  representative  assembly,  or  any  gen- 
eral governing  body.  For  their  own  internal  regu- 
lation and  the  carrying  out  of  their  ]>urposes,  the 
churches  may  adopt  in  addition  lo  tlie  scriptural  re- 
quirements such  forms  and  methods  as  are  not  for- 
bidden by  Scripture,  or  contrary  to  its  spirit :  but 
any  and  all  of  the  things  so  adopted  are  purely  dis- 
cretionary and  may  be  altered  or  abolished  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  churches.^  These  views  are  set  forth 
in  the  Philadelphia  Confession  in  the  following 
words :  'To  each  of  these  churches  thus  gathered, 
according  to  his  mind  declared  in  his  Word,  he  hath 


24  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

given  all  that  power  and  authority  which  is  any 
way  needful  for  their  carrying  on  that  order  in  wor- 
ship and  discipline  which  he  hath  instituted  for 
them  to  observe,  with  commands  and  rules  for  the 
due  and  right  exerting  and  executing  of  that  power." 

The  opposing  views  may  be  conveniently  classi- 
fied according  to  the  ground  upon  which  their  oppo- 
sition is  based,  viz.,  upon  church  authority,  expe- 
diency and  Scripture.  We  will  first  consider  those 
who  oppose  us  on  the  ground  of  church  authority. 
Here  the  authority  of  the  church  itself,  as  supple- 
mentary to  Scripture,  is  called  upon  to  decide  the 
form  of  organization  and  government.  Those  who 
appeal  to  this  ground  are  the  Roman  Catholics,  the 
Greek  Church  and  usually  the  high-church  Episco- 
palians, with  possibly  some  others.  The  theory  may 
be  briefly  stated  in  the  following  terms:  The  form 
of  government  found  in  the  New  Testament  was 
designed  for  the  church  only  in  the  beginning  of  its 
existence,  and  was,  therefore,  only  a  germ;  the 
Apostles  committed  to  the  church  thus  imperfectly 
organized  the  authority  and  the  power  to  develop 
this  germ  un&er  the  promised  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  hence,  the  church,  as  historically  developed 
under  these  sanctions,  is  in  the  true  apostolic  suc- 
cession, and  is,  therefore,  still  divinely  organized 
and  governed,  although  it  has  departed  more  or  less 
widely  from  the  form  found  in  the  New  Testament. 

But  at  this  point  division  occurs  among  the  ad- 
herents of  the  ecclesiastical  theory.  The  Greek 
Church,  after  long  conflicts,  having  finally  separated 
from  that  of  Rome  in  the  ninth  century,  maintains 
that  it  is  the  true  and  "orthodox  apostolic  church." 


PRELIMINAUY  CONSIDERATIONS.  25 

It  presents  a  state  of  arrested  development.  It  is 
still  nominally  under  the  control  of  Patriarchs  and 
Metropolitans,  though  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  civil 
authorities  in  the  countries  where  it  prevails,  exer- 
cise a  very  important  control  over  the  church.  The 
English  Church,  having  left  Rome  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  largely  for  political  reasons,  endeavors 
to  shake  off  the  Romanist  errors  of  the  Middle 
Ages  and  of  modern  times,  and  to  found  itself  in 
the  older  and  less  corrupt  tradition  of  the  first 
three  or  four  centuries.  It  still,  however,  claims  to 
be  in  the  true  apostolic  succession,  and,  therefore, 
to  be  the  true  church  of  God.  Some  Anglicans,  as 
is  natural,  are  more  strict  in  their  views  than  others, 
making  more  or  less  exclusive  claim  for  their  church 
according  to  their  ecclesiastical  opinions.  As  is 
well  known,  the  English  Church  is  a  state  institu- 
tion, while  in  its  strictly  ecclesiastical  affairs  it  is 
governed  by  the  bishops  and  the  Houses  of  Convoca- 
tion. The  Roman  Catholic  Church  maintains  the 
supremacy  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  as  the  pope,  or 
father,  of  the  whole  church  universal,  he  being  con- 
sidered the  direct  lineal,  historical  successor  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  the  primate  among  the  Apostles. 
The  pope  is  held  to  be  the  head  of  the  universal 
church  on  earth  and  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  in 
the  management  of  church  affairs.  Along  with,  and 
under,  the  pope  the  other  bishops  constitute  a  su- 
preme hierarchy  for  the  absolute  government  of  the 
"one  holy  Catholic  Apostolical  Church"  in  all  the 
world.  The  decisions  of  popes  and  councils  are  held 
to  be  of  equal  authority  with  the  Scriptures,  and 
the  claim  of  the  Roman  Church  to  infallible  eccle- 


26  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

siastical  supremacy  rests  upon  its  unbroken  historic 
tradition. 

To  this  doctrine  of  church  authority'  Baptists  do 
not  subscribe  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons.  They 
claim  that  tradition,  no  matter  how  ancient  and 
clear,  has  no  authority  to  develop,  amend  or  alter 
the  scriptural  mode  of  church  government.  They 
insist  that  there  is  no  adequate  proof  that  the  New- 
Testament  polity  was  intended  solely  for  the  early 
church.  If  there  was  no  hint  in  Scripture  that  the 
mode  of  government  existing  in  apostolic  times  was 
intended  to  be  universal  and  permanent,  equally 
true  is  it  that  there  is  no  hint  of  any  other  form 
which  was  to  be  such,  and  no  suggestion  that  the 
apostolic  polity  was  designed  to  pass  away  with 
the  apostolic  age.  They  further  maintain  that  there 
is  no  proof  in  Scripture,  and  no  valid  proof  in  his- 
tory, for  the  apostolical  succession  in  bishops,  or 
for  the  primacy  of  Peter  and  the  succession  of  the 
popes  from  him ;  and  finally,  they  argue  that  the 
historical  developments  of  the  church  are  unscrip- 
tural,  and  often  corrupt.  Another  line  of  objec- 
tion to  the  development  theory  of  the  church  is  that 
it  compels  its  advocates  to  fall  into  a  dilemma. 
Either  they  must  maintain  that  all  the  developed 
forms  of  church  polity  are  of  equal  authority  and 
value,  or  that  their  particular  one  is  the  only  mode 
which  can  claim  to  be  the  true  church.  If  they  take 
the  former  view  they  are  landed  into  what  might  be 
called  comprehensive  confusion;  and  if  the  latter, 
who  is  to  judge  by  the  historical  evidence  whether 
the  Greek,  Roman  or  Anglican  hierarchy  is  the  true 
apostolic  church? 


PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS. 


27 


We  take  np  now  those  who  controvert  the  Baptist 
view  of  church  government  on  the  ground  of  expe- 
diency.    The  word  ''expediency''  is  not  used  as  a 
term   of  reproach,   nor   does  it   do   full   justice   to 
those  whom  it  is  meant  to  describe;  for  we  must 
not  say  that  the  advocates  of  this  view  with  con- 
scious purpose  exalt  mere  expediency  above  Scrip- 
ture, or  even  put  it  on  a  level  with  Scripture  in  de- 
termining church  organization;  yet,   as  they   give 
much  value  to  expediency,  allowing  a  larger  discre- 
tion than  Baptists  are  accustomed  to  grant  in  ques- 
tions of  church  polity,  it  may  not  be  unfair  to  de- 
scribe this  class  of  thinkers  under  the  term  pro- 
posed.     Here    would    be    included    the    low-church 
Episcopalians,  who  do  not  greatly  exalt  church  au- 
thority and  apostolic  tradition,  but  they  rather  say 
that  the  Episcopal  Church  as  historically  developed 
is  as  good  as  any,  and  upon  the  whole  is  more  expe- 
dient than  any  other.     Here,  too,  would  belong  the 
Methodists   of   all    names,   and   the   Lutherans,    to- 
gether with  some  Presbyterians  and  a  few  others. 
Obviously  these  do  not  agree  in  details.     If  expe- 
diency is  to  determine  the  form  of  church  govern- 
ment it  at  once  appears  that  the  forms  of  church 
government  so  determined  will  be  almost  infinitely 
various.    Attempt  may  be  made  to  state  the  theory 
in  general  terms  somewhat  as  follows:     The  advo- 
cates of  expediency  would  admit  that  Scripture  au- 
thority is  supreme,  so  that  what  the  Bible  clearly 
reveals  is  binding,  and  what  it  clearly  forbids  is  to 
be  rejected.     They  maintain  that  the  authority  of 
Scripture  as  to  church  polity  is  not  definite,  either 
that  no  special  form  of  church  government  is  dis- 


28  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tinctly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  or  that  the  form 
given  is  not  binding;  or  both  together,  that  is,  that 
the  form  of  government  is  not  clearly  enough  re- 
vealed to  be  binding.  Thus  the  low-church  Episco- 
palians need  not  maintain  that  episcopacy  is  en- 
joined in  the  Scripture,  but  that  it  arose  so  early  in 
Christian  history,  and  has  been  for  centuries  so  good 
a  means  of  maintaining  church  government,  that 
its  expediency  is  demonstrated  by  its  great  and  long- 
continued  usefulness;  so  they  maintain  that  epis- 
copacy is  the  best  form  of  government  even  though 
it  may  lack  adequate  scriptural  foundation.  The 
Lutherans  press  the  principle  of  expediency  to  a 
considerable  degree,  and  so  it  comes  about  that  their 
government  differs  widely  in  different  countries  and 
localities,  ranging  from  episcopacy  in  Sweden,  and 
a  State-Church  in  Germany,  to  almost  a  congrega- 
tional, or  presbyterial,  form  of  government  among 
many  of  the  American  Lutherans.  The  government 
of  the  Lutheran  churches  in  America  is  difficult  to 
describe.  They  have  no  united  body,  and  the  sev- 
eral synods  do  not  agree  among  themselves  as  to  all 
points  of  church  government.  The  Lutherans  who 
have  been  longest  in  this  country  are  more  inclined 
perhaps  to  the  congregational  form  of  government, 
though  others  among  them  resemble  more  nearly 
the  Presbyterians.  The  Methodists  hold  that  gov- 
ernment is  provided  for  in  the  Scripture,  but  that 
the  particular  form  of  it  is  left  discretionary.  Their 
episcopate  is  merely  a  superintendency — a  minis- 
terial function,  growing  out  of  the  early  needs  of 
their  societies,  or  churches,  and  justified  by  its  use- 
fulness.   The  great  body  of  their  people  is  governed 


PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS.  29 

by  conferences,  ranging  from  the  local  church  con- 
ference up  to  the  General  Conference,  but  the  actual 
government  of  the  church  is  principally  in  the  hands 
of  the  bishops,  presiding  elders  and  preachers.  They 
claim  no  apostolic  succession.  Their  general  regu- 
lations are  devised  according  to  what  is  best  for 
their  people  and  for  the  times.  Among  the  advo- 
cates of  expediency  must  also  be  reckoned  a  few 
Presbyterians  who  base  the  claims  of  presbytery 
upon  use  rather  than  Scripture;  and  even  some 
Baptists,  or  Congregationalists,  put  more  stress 
upon  their  form  of  government  as  expedient  than  as 
being  clearly  binding  by  scriptural  command  or 
precedent. 

To  the  general  principle  of  expediency  as  a  basis 
of  church  government  some  objections  may  be  noted. 
It  would  be  diflficult  to  prove  that  the  form  of  church 
government  is  left  wholly  discretionary  with  the 
churches.  The  binding  nature  of  New  Testament 
precedent  and  of  apostolic  appointments  cannot  be 
dismissed  with  a  wave  of  the  hand  as  if  these  ap- 
pointments were  appropriate  only  in  the  apostolic 
age.  Again,  the  Baptists  and  their  Congregational 
brethren  may  claim  with  much  reason  that  the  out- 
lines and  the  general  features  of  church  polity 
are  clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are,  there- 
fore, binding  upon  us,  although  many  details  are 
necessarily  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  churches; 
but  the  most  serious  objection  that  can  be  lodged 
against  expediency  is  that  mere  fitness  and  useful- 
ness ought  not  to  alter,  and  certainly  cannot  im- 
prove, the  scriptural  model  of  church  government. 
If  this  principle  be  pressed,  not  only  the  precedents 


30  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

but  the  even  the  commands  of  the  Scriptures  will 
not  be  safe. 

Passing-  now  to  those  who  oppose  the  Congrega- 
tionalist  and  Baptist  view  of  chmrch  government 
on  the  ground  of  Scripture,  we  must  mention  Pres- 
byterians of  all  sorts,  and  besides  these  there  may 
be  some  others,  reckoning  the  Reformed  churches  as 
Presbyterians.  As  is  well  known  the  Presbyterians 
derive  their  uame-from  the  Greek  word  7rp€a0uTepo<i 
{jii'csht/tcros),  a  presbyter,  or  elder,  and  so  the 
name  indicates  government  by  elders.  By  Presby- 
terians generally  the  authority  of  Scripture  is  firmly 
claimed,  and  all  systems  of  government  but  their 
own  are  opposed  on  scriptural  grounds.  It  is,  there- 
fore, a  matter  of  interpretation  and  inference  which 
divides  us  from  them.  Their  argument  briefly  stated 
would  run  about  thus:  The  eldership  among  the 
Israelites  as  set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  government  of  the  synagogue  by  elders  in  the 
time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  constituted  the 
basis  of  the  organization  of  Christian  churches  and 
give  logical  and  valid  inference  in  favor  of  that  form 
of  church  government ;  there  was  a  plurality  of 
elders  in  the  apostolic  churches  and  these  were  di- 
vided into  ruling  and  teaching  elders;  the  govern- 
ment of  the  churches  was  representative  rather  than 
congregational,  and  hence,  church  courts  and  higher 
legislative  bodies  are  a  permissible,  if  not  necessary, 
development.  This  rfgument  has  undoubted  force, 
and  has  been  presented  with  great  ability  by  mauj' 
eminent  Presbyterian  divines.  The  Baptist  answer 
to  it,  however,  is  at  hand :  The  Christian  church 
is  distinct  from  the  Old  Testament  theocracy  and 


I'RKLIMIXARY  CONSIDEUATIONS.  31 

from  the  Jewish  synagogue,  aud  iufereuces  from 
these  only  throw  light  upon  the  organization  of  the 
churches;  they  do  not  bind  any  observance  upon  us. 
The  distinction  between  lay  and  clerical  elders  is 
not  borne  out  by  careful  and  correct  interpretation, 
resting  upon  only  one  passage  of  Scripture,  and  that 
not  sufficiently  clear  as  to  the  point  involved;  the 
theory  of  a  general  organization  of  higher  legisla- 
tive assemblies  and  of  a  gradation  of  church  courts 
is  wholly  unscriptural,  being  but  an  inference  from 
an  inference. 

It  is  fair,  however,  for  Baptists  to  make  to  the 
other  views  some  concession,  so  far  as  this  may  be 
done  without  prejudice  to  the  truth  of  Scripture. 
To  the  advocates  of  church  authority  it  may  be  con- 
ceded that  the  historic  tradition  of  the  early  cen- 
turies is  of  some  value  in  helping  us  to  understand 
what  the  Scriptures  teach ;  but  it  is  of  no  authority 
to  change  what  is  taught,  either  by  development  or 
supposed  amendment.  To  those  who  argue  from  ex- 
pediency it  may  be  conceded  that  there  are  of 
course  some  things  left  discretionary  with  the 
churches,  and  it  is  often  hard  to  tell  exactly  what 
and  how  much ;  but  the  discretionary  power  of  the 
churches  does  not  include  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples and  the  leading  features  of  church  polity,  as 
these  are  outlined  in  the  New  Testament.  It  may 
be  further  conceded  to  them  that  the  exact  form  of 
church  polity  is  not  in  so  many  words  described, 
nor  by  any  definite  command  enjoined,  in  the  Scrip- 
ture; but  it  is  too  plainly  indicated  to  be  departed 
from  without  better  reason  than  that  of  expediency, 
and  is  too  good  to  be  improved  by  human  wisdom. 


32  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

To  the  Presbyterians  is  cheerfully  conceded  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  on  the  principle  that  the 
Bible  is  the  supreme  authority  on  this  matter;  but 
we  are  compelled  to  dispute  their  interpretations 
and  inferences.  The  eldership  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  of  the  synagogue  throws  light  upon  what  the 
Apostles  actuall3'  did  establish,  but  it  has  no  bind- 
ing force.  The  constitution  of  the  synagogue  may 
have  been  divinely  used  as  a  suggestion  to  the  Apos- 
tles in  forming  Christian  churches,  but  the  syna- 
gogue itself  is  not  a  model  for  church  government. 
There  was  a  plural  eldership  in  the  apostolic 
churches,  but  that  does  not  involve  the  modern 
Presbyterian  distinction  between  ruling  and  teach- 
ing elders.  Again,  it  appears  that  the  elders  w^ere 
accorded  a  certain  amount  of  authority  in  the 
churches ;  but  it  seems  to  have  been  moral  and  execu- 
tive rather  than  governmental  and  judicial. 

Why  should  we  make  a  special  study  of  church 
polity?  It  is  a  subject,  which,  for  various  reasons, 
is  likely  to  be  slighted.  For  many  the  lack  of  em- 
phasis upon  denominational  distinctions,  which 
seems  to  be  growing  in  our  days,  gives  less  point 
and  interest  to  the  subject  of  church  organization. 
Others  may  slight  it  not  from  dislike  of  sectarian 
discussion,  but  because  they  do  not  find  it  so  vast 
and  difficult  and  profound  as  some  other  subjects. 
These  views,  however,  are  superficial.  Church  polity 
is  a  subject  of  great  importance,  and  ought  to  be  one 
of  grave  interest. 

To  Christians  no  religious  question  should  be  of 
small  moment,  even  if  some  are  allowed  to  be  rela- 
tiv^ely  of  minor  importance.    Certainly  nothing  that 


rREIJMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS.  3S 

relates  to  the  constitution  and  life  of  the  church 
ought  to  be  a  matter  of  indifference.  From  early 
times,  and  especially  since  the  Reformation,  ques- 
tions of  church  polity  have  been  greatly  debated; 
master  minds  have  been  engaged  upon  them.  Some 
of  the  most  notable  books  in  all  the  range  of  theo- 
logical literature  have  been  devoted  entirely,  or  in 
large  part,  to  this  theme.  In  fact,  modern  Chris- 
tianity is  inexplicable  without  some  attention  to 
church  polity.  But  the  greatest  reason  of  all  why 
the  subject  is  important  is  this:  If  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  left  a  form  of  church  organization,  or  even 
if  they  only  indicated  the  germs  of  such  a  form,  it  is 
of  the  utmost  interest  and  importance  to  discover 
if  possible  just  what  that  polity  is. 

More  particularly-  we  may  say  that  church  polity 
is  vitally  related  to  everything  else  in  Christian  doc- 
trine and  life.  Doctrines  accord  with  the  view  that 
is  held  of  the  church ;  the  ordinances  and  the  wor- 
ship of  the  church  are  essentially  concerned  with 
the  form  of  its  government ;  and  even  the  moral  life 
and  religious  activity  of  the  members  are  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  involved  in  the  nature  of  the 
church's  constitution.  It  must  be  admitted,  fur- 
ther, that  there  is  a  sad  lack  of  information  and  of 
intelligent  judgment  on  this  subject.  And  while 
this  is  true  of  the  people  at  large,  it  is  unfortunately 
not  uncommon  for  even  a  well-informed  and  intel- 
ligent minister  to  be  exceedingly  ignorant,  both  as 
to  the  history  and  the  working  of  forms  of  church 
order  outside  of  his  own  denomination.  Certainly 
this  should  not  be  the  case. 

The  subject  of  church  polity  is  especially  inter- 


34  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

■esting  to  Baptists  in  the  light  of  their  past,  present 
and  future.  The  history  of  the  suffering  and  tri- 
umphs of  our  Baptist  forefathers  is  largely  that  of 
their  struggles  and  victories  in  regard  to  the  true 
idea  of  the  church  and  its  ordinances.  And  then 
in  the  light  of  their  present  it  is  important  for  Bap- 
tists to  understand  thoroughly  the  principles  of 
<ihurch  polity ;  for  they  are  no  longer  a  despised  and 
feeble  sect,  but  a  great  people — great  in  their  prin- 
ciples, great  in  their  numbers.  Once  more,  in  the 
light  of  their  future  it  is  incumbent  upon  Baptists 
to  have  clear  and  well-defined  views  in  regard  to 
church  organization ;  for  the  very  progress  and  tri- 
umph of  their  principles  involve  some  perils.  It  is 
a  serious  question,  how  with  our  simple  polity,  we 
may  unite  our  large  and  unwieldy  numbers.  It  is 
our  duty  to  guard  against  sectional  and  doctrinal 
divergences  which  may  cause  divisions  among  our 
people.  Moreover,  the  infusion  of  Baptist  princi- 
ples into  bodies  which  remain  Paedobaptist,  and 
retain  some  other  errors  of  Rome,  may  tend  to  make 
questions  of  church  polity  seem  of  small  impor- 
tance. Not  even  all  churches  which  have  a  congre- 
gational polity  can  be  properly  regarded  as  New 
Testament  churches.  Again,  certain  drifts  in  the 
thought  and  life  of  our  time  require  watching  as  to 
their  bearing  upon  the  matter  of  the  organization 
and  work  of  the  churches.  In  this  day  of  much  or- 
ganization the  innumerable  religious  and  other  so- 
cieties may  greatly  obscure,  if  they  do  not  entirely 
overwhelm,  a  proper  church  life.  The  prevalence 
of  loose  views  as  to  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
jnay  give  greater  force  to  the  idea  of  expediency, 


PRELIMINARY  CONSIDERATIONS.  35 

or  tradition,  iu  regard  to  church  polity.  Another 
matter  of  great  importance  to  us  is  the  indifference 
which  the  great  mass  of  our  Baptist  church  mem- 
bers seem  to  feel  in  regard  to  the  business  meetings 
of  the  church.  There  is  a  tendency  among  us,  more 
and  more,  as  was  the  case  in  the  early  churches,  to 
representative,  or  even  hierarchical,  forms  of  church 
government.  If  the  congregations  do  not  govern 
themselves  it  becomes  easy  to  turn  the  management 
of  affairs  over  to  the  few.  The  history  of  the  past 
should  make  us  watchful  of  these  tendencies,  and  a 
proper  understanding  of  New  Testament  church 
government  and  its  application  to  the  needs  of  our 
own  days  is  essential  to  every  one  who  aspires  to 
be  a  well-equipped  and  useful  pastor  of  a  Baptist 
church. 


36  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  II. 

THE  WORD  "eCCLESIA." 

I.  Ecclesia  in  tlie  local  sense. 

1.  Some  particular  church  or  churches. 

(a)  Word  used  in  the  singular. 

(b)  In  the  plural, 

2.  No  particular  church  or   churches,  yet  the 

local  meaning  evident. 

(a)  Term  in  singular. 

(b)  In  the  plural. 

II.  Ecclesia  in  the  general  sense.  . 

1.  Generic,  cf.  "the  home,"  ''the  school." 

2.  Collective.     The  unorganized   mass   of  pro- 

fessed believers  in  Christ. 

(a)  The  object  of  Saul's  persecution. 

(b)  The  extended  brotherhood. 

3.  Universal.     The  whole  body  of  Christ's  peo- 

ple everywhere. 

III.  Some  conclusions. 

1.  No  need  of  unscriptural  appellations. 

2.  No  trace  of  organization  beyond  the   local 

body. 

3.  Influence  of  New  Testament  usage  on  our 

own. 


CHAPTER  II. 

CHURCH  POLITY  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
THE  WORD  ''ECCLESIA." 

In  taking  up  the  study  of  church  polity,  our  first 
duty  is  to  discover  if  we  caa  the  form  of  government 
which  is  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament.  Two  main 
difficulties  confront  us:  First,  that  of  personal  bias 
or  prepossession,  already  pointed  out  in  the  Intro- 
duction. Second,  that  of  interpretation.  The 
amount  of  data  for  forming  safe  and  final  judgment 
even  on  some  of  the  most  important  points,  is  not 
large.  And  the  interpretation  of  the  passages  in- 
volved is  therefore  very  difficult.  But  with  due 
recognition  of  all  our  limitations  we  should  ear- 
nestly and  candidly  endeavor  to  find  out  all  and 
just  what  tte^New  Testament  does  teach  on  the  sub- 
ject of  church  polity.  With  this  end  in  view  we  study 
in  this  chapter  the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word 
ecclesia. 

Before  entering,  however,  upon  a  comparative  dis- 
cussion of  the  passages  of  Scripture,  some  prelimi- 
nary observations  will  be  necessary.  The  word 
eKK\r](ria  (ecclesia)  is  derived  from  i/c  (ec),  out,  and 
KaX4a>  icaleo),  to  call,  denoting  in  good  Greek 
usage  the  assembly  of  citizens  when  called  out  from 
their  homes  to  the  gat^iering  places  for  the  discus- 
sion of  public  business.*  Some  writers  hold  that 
*Cf.  Liddell  &  Scott,  s.  v. 


38  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  idea  of  a  selection  of  certain  persons  from 
among  the  people  generally  is  involved  in  the  word, 
but  this  view  is  not  certainly  sustained  by  the  Greek 
etymology— the  assembly  not  being  called  out  in  the 
sense  of  being  selected  from  a  larger  mass,  but  sim- 
ply summoned  to  attend  to  the  public  interests. 
Then  the  word  iKKXrjaia  (ecclesia)  came  to  mean 
in  a  general  sense  a  gathering^  or  assembly,  of  peo- 
ple, even  though  they  might  not  be  summoned  spe- 
cifically for  the  transaction  of  public  business: 
From  this  more  general  use  the  word  passed  to  its 
employment  in  the  Septuagint  and^the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  the  8eptuagint  it  is  often  used  to  trans- 
late the  Hebrew  qahal,  congregation.  In  the  New 
Testament  its  usage  may  be  best  di'scovered  by 
studying  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs. 

There  are  a  few  passages  in  which  the  word  does 
not  mean  church.  In  Acts  7:38  Stephen  mentions 
the  assembly,  or  congregation,  of  the  people  in  the 
wilderness,  most  probably  having  in  mind  the  great 
gathering  of  the  people  at  Sinai  when  the  law  was 
given.  To  translate  the  word  ''church"  in  this  con- 
nection is  manifestly  wrong,  and  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion has  very  properly  used  'Congregation"  instead. 
In  the  19th  chapter  of  Acts  in  refeijence  to  the  up- 
roar at  Ephesus  the  word  occurs  several  times,  but 
certainly  not  in  the  sense  of  the  church.  In  verses 
32  and  41,  as  is  evident  from  the  connection,  the 
word  simply  means  the  coming  together  of  the  peo- 
ple— the  crowd.  This  is  not  strictly  speaking  a 
proper  use  of  the  word  and  does  not  seem  to  occur 
elsewhere.  In  verse  39  there  is  reference  to  the  law- 
ful assembly  as  opposed  to  the  confused  crowd,  and 


THE  WORD  ''ECCLESIA.*'  39 

this  usage  accords  with  the  common  classic  signifi- 
cation of  an  assembly  of  the  citizens.  In  Hebrews 
2 :12  there  is  a  quotation  from  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  Psalm  22:22,  ''In  the  midst  of  the  congre- 
gation will  I  sing  praise  to  thee."  Here  there  is  no 
description  of  the  New  Testament  church  as  such, 
but  simply  of  a  worshiping  congregation.  Still  it  \^ 
is  a  suggestive  fact  that  the  word  occurs  in  this 
quotation  from  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  all  the  remaining  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  the  word  iKKXrjaiai cedes ia)  is  correctly 
translated  church. 

By  far  the  larger  number  of  these  passages  de- 
scribe the  church  as  a_![ocal  assembly  of  Christian  - 
believers.  There  is  a  smaller  number,  however,  of 
very  important  places  in  which  the  word  has  a  more 
general  meaning.  It  is  common  to  distinguish  these 
two  classes  of  meanings  by  the  terms  "local  church"  v/' 
and  "universal  church."  It  seems,  however,  in  some 
few  passages  that,  while  the  local  sense  of  the  word 
is  not  clearly  retained,  and  a  more  general  significa- 
tion is  intended,  still  the  church  universal  in  the 
broadest  sense  is  not  meant.  Besides  the  "church 
universal"  is  not  itself  a  New  Testament  term,  and 
there  is  no  binding  reason  why  it  should  be  em- 
ployed otherwise  than  as  a  convenient  designation. 
The  better  way  is  to  distinguish  between  a  local  and 
a  general  meaning  of  the  word  church,  rather  than 
to  press  an  unscriptural  distinction  between  "church 
local"  and  "church  universal,"  as  if  entirely  differ- 
ent things  were  meant. 

We  shall  take  up  first  those  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  in  which  the  word  eV/cX?7crja  iceelesia)  de- 


40  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

scribes  the  church  as  a  local  assembly,  or  iu  other 
words  is  used  in  the  local  sense.  For  convenience  of 
discussion  the  passages  may  be  divided  into  those 
which  refer  to  some  particular  church,  or  churches; 
and  those  which  do  not  point  to  any  specified  church, 
and  yet  retain  the  local  meaning  of  the  term ;  and 
these  may  further  be  subdivided  into  passages  where 
the  word  is  used  in  the  singular  and  in  the  plural. 
It  will  not  be  necessary  to  discuss  all  the  passages, 
but  enough  to  serve  as  fair  samples  of  the  whole. 
In  some  cases  there  will  naturally  be  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  classification  or  interpretation  of 
the  passage,  but  in  most  cases  the  meaning  is  clear 
beyond  doubt.  The  passages  which  describe  some 
particular  church,  or  churches,  are  as  follows: 

a)  Singular:  Acts  5:11;  8:1;  11:22,26;  12:1,5; 
13:1;  14:27;  15:3,4,22;  18:22;  20:17;  Rom.  16:1 
(23?);  1  Cor.  1:2;  6:4;  2  Cor.  1:1;  Col.  4:16;  1 
Thess.  1:1;  2  Thess.  1:1;  3  John  6,9,10;  Rev.  2:1,8, 
12,18;  3:1,7,14.  Add  here  Rom.  16:5;  1  Cor.  16:19; 
Col.  4:15;  Philem.  2. 

b)  Plural:  Acts  15-41;  1  Cor.  16:1;  2  Cor.  8:1 
(18?),  19  (23?);  11:8;  Gal.  1:2,22;  1  Thess.  2:14; 
Rev.  1:11;  2:7,11,17  (23?),  29;  3  :6;  (22:16?). 

The  Revised  Version  is  used  here  in  the  references 
and  quotations.  In  Acts  5:11  it  is  said:  "Great  fear^ 
came  upon  the  whole  church."  It  would  be  impos- 
sible to  say  from  this  one  passage  whether  the  as- 
sembly had  yet  been  definitely  organized  or  not.  The 
"^word  may  be  used  here  in  a  somewhat  loose  sense  for 
the  general  body  of  believers,  but  it  is  clear  that  the 
body  of  Christians  at  Jerusalem  is  meant.  In  Acts 
8 :1  the  designation  is  definite,  where  after  the  death 


THK  WORD  "eCCLESIA."  41 

of  Stephen  it  is  said :  "There  arose  a  great  perse- 
cution against  the  church  wh_icli_v\'as  in  Jerusalem." 
In  Acts  11 :26  it  is  evident  that  the  church  at  An- 
tioch  is  described,  where  it  is  said  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  "gathered  together  with  the  church 
and  taught  much  people,  and  that  the  disciples  were 
first  called  Christians  in  Antioch.''  Most  of  the 
passages  in  the  earlv  part  of  Acts  describe  alter- 
nately the  churches  at  Jerusalem  and  at  Antioch. 
In  Acts  18 :22  it  is  said  of  Paul  that  when  he  landed 
at  Csesarea  he  went  up  and  saluted  the  church  and 
went  down  to  Antioch.  The  reference  there  may  be 
to  the  church  at  Jerusalem — that  is,  that  he  went  up 
from  Ciesarea  to  salute  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
and  from  there  went  down  to  Antioch ;  but  it  is  pos- 
sible that  there  was  a  church  at  Caesarea  which  is 
intended .  In  either  case  it  is  clearly  the  local 
church.  In  Acts  20:17  Paul  is  related  to  have  sent 
from  Miletus  to  Ephesus  and  "called  the  elders  of 
the  church" — that  is,  the  church  at  Ephesus.  In 
Romans  10 :1  the  church  at  Cenchreae  is  mentioned.. 
In  the  23d  verse  the  Apostle  speaks  of  the  remark- 
able hospitality  of  Gains,  whom  he  describes  as  the 
host  of  the  "whole  church."  Here  the  reference  may 
be  to  tlie  church  at  Corinth  (whence  the  Apostle  was 
writing),  which  found  a  home  in  Gains'  house;  or 
it  may  mean  the  church  in  the  more  general  sense 
of  the  whole  body  of  Christians,  meaning  not  abso- 
lutely every  one  of  them,  but  any  of  them  as  they 
came  along,  who  were  the  recipients  of  Gains'  large- 
hearted  kindness.  In  several  places  in  the  Epistles 
to  the  Corinthian  church  that  organization  is  speci- 
fied, while  in  Col.  4:16  the  church  at  Laodicea  is 


42  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

named.  In  the  Third  Epistle  of  John  6,0,10,  the 
reference  is  probably  to  the  local  church  of  which 
Gains  was  a  member.  In  the  first  two  chapters  of 
Revelation  the  seven  chnrches  of  Asia  Minor  are  re- 
peatedly mentioned, — Ephesns,  Smyrna,  Pergamum, 
Thyatira,  Sardis,  Philadelphia  and  Laodicea.  We 
should  add  here  the  three  passages.  Rom.  1G:5; 
1  Cor.  16:19;  Col.  4:15  and  Philem  2,  where  occurs 
the  phrase  ''the  church  in  the  house"  of  some  one 
named  or  meant.  Interpreters  are  not  agreed  as 
to  the  meaning  here,  being  divided  between  two 
opinions.  Some  hold  that  a  portion  of  the  local 
church  is  meant, — a  smaller  body  of  the  general 
church  in  the  place,  which  might  have  worshiped 
at  the  house  of  the  person  named,  or  that  the  whole 
local  church,  being  small,  may  have  been  described  as 
meeting  in  the  house.  Others  hold  that  the  house- 
hold, or  family  of  the  person  is  meant  in  cases 
where  they  were  all  believers,  and  are  thus  by  a 
figure  of  speech  described  as  a  church.  The  first 
interpretation  is  preferred  as  being  upon  the  whole 
the  most  natural ;  and  this  designation  already  sug- 
gests a  division  of  the  great  town  churches  into 
smaller  sections  for  worship  in  particular  localities. 
In  passages  where  the  word  is  used  in  the  plural 
it  is  very  clear  that  the  conception  of  the  local 
church  is  intended.  Thus  in  Acts  15:41  it  is  said  of 
Paul  that  ''he  went  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  con- 
firming the  churches,"  meaning  of  cour^^e  the  (local  y 
assemblies  in  these  two  countries,  which  had  been 
established  by  him  on  a  previous  visit.  In  Galatians, 
the  first  chapter,  he  speaks  in  one  place  (v.  2)  of 
the  churches  of  Galatia,  and  in  another  (v.  22)   of 


THE  WORD  "ECCLESIA.''  43 

the  churches  of  Judjea.     This  last  passage  would 


indicate  that  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  this 
epistle,  or  of  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  which  he  is 
describing,  there  wag^  more  than  one  church  in 
Judaea.  This  passage  taken  in  connection  with 
^cts  9:31,  where  the  local  church  of  Jerusalem 
seems  to  be  referred  to,  gives  us  an  interesting  point 
in  the  development  and  growth  of  the  churches  in 
that  region. 

We  now  notice  passages  which  do  not  refer  to 
any  specified  church,  and  yet  clearly  exemplify  the 
local  meaning.  Here  again  the  word  is  used  both 
in  the  singular  and  plural : 

a)  Singular:  Matt.  18:17;  Acts  U:23;  1  Cor. 
4:17;  11:18.22;  14:4-35;  Phil.  4:15;  1  Tim.  3;5; 
5:16;  Jas.  5:14. 

b)  Plural:  Acts  16:5;  Rom.  16:4;  1  Cor.  7:17; 
11:16;  14:33,34;  2  Cor.  8:18,23,24;  11:28;  12:13; 
2  Thess.  1 :4  ;  Rev.  2  :23 ;  22  :16.  In  Matt.  18 :17  our 
Lord  speaks  of  dealing  with  an  offending  brother, 
and  says,  in  case  he  will  not  yield  to  the  previous 
treatment,  ''Tell  it  to  the  church."  Evidently  here 
there  is  no  allusion  to  any  particular  church,  and 
certainly  not  to  the  church  universal,  but  to  the 
local  body  of  which  the  persons  were  members. 
This  is  a  sort  of  generic  use  of  the  word.  We  again 
find  the  local  use  of  the  term  in  Acts  14:23,  where 
Paul  and  Barnabas  are  said  to  have  "appointed 
elders  in  every  church."  In  1  Cor.  4  :17  the  Apostle 
alludes  to  his  teaching  "everywhere  in  every 
,'hurch.-'  In  1  Tim.  3:5  Paul  asks,  "If  a  man 
snoweth  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  how  shall 
he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God?''  that  is,  the 


44:  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

local  church,  not  the  general  body.  Other  passages 
may  be  consulted  with  the  same  result.  In  a  similar 
way  the  texts  where  the  word  is  used  in  the  plural 
may  be  noticed.  In  Acts  16:5  it  is  said:  ''So  the_, 
churches  were  strengthened  in  faith,  and  increased 
in  number  daily;"  also  in  Rom.  16:4  the  Apostle 
alTudes  to  the  gratitude  felt  Toward  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  not  only  by  himself,  but  by  all  the  churches 
of  the  Gentiles;  and  in  1  Cor.  11:16,  in  speaking 
of  certain  disorders  in  the  church  at  Corinth  he 
says:  "We  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the  churches 
of  God." 

We  proceed  now  to  study  those  passages  in  which 
the  word  "church"  is  used  in  a  niore  general  sense.  '  ^  ^^ 
It  is  a  question  of  some  interest,  but  of  little  im- 
portance, whether  the  local  sense  of  the  word  pre- 
ceded and  gave  rise  to  the  general,  or  the  reverse. 
It  may  be  that  the  general  idea  of  the  whole  mass 
of  Christ's  people — the  kingdom  of  God,  the  spiri- 
tual Israel — was  first  in  the  minds  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers ;  ^M^  that  the  portion  of  this  general 
body  at  any  particular  place  was  conceived  of  as 
the  whole  "church,"  so  far  as  there  represented. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  the  dominant  conception  in 
the  minds  of  the  Greeks  was  that  of  a  local  "as- 
sembly"— the  citizens  of  a  town  gathered  for  some 
public  purpose.  Looking  at  the  usage  from  the 
Jewish  side,  then,  there  may  have  been  a  localizing 
of  the  general  conception  of  the  ccclesia,  but  look- 
ing at  it  from  the  Greek  side  there  may  have  been 
a  generalizing  of  the  local  sense.  And  it  ought  to 
be  remembered  that  the  existence  of  synagogues  in 
different  places  would  hav^e  rendered  a  local  use  of 


THE  WORD  ''p^COLESIA.''  45 

ecclesia  perfectly  natural  and  intelligible  to  Jewish 
Christians,  without  regard  to  so  abstract  a  concep- 
tion as  that  of  a  localized  general  body.  In  fact, 
the  two  senses  may  have  been  parallel  from  the 
first  in  Christian  use,  and  it  matters  little  which 
we  begin  with.  While  in  a  great  majority  of 
passages  where  the  word  eKKKrjcria  {ecclesia)  occurs 
the  meaning  is  unmistakably  that  of  the  local 
church,  there  are  yet  a  few  weighty  passages  where 
this  well-defined  conception  gives  place  to  one  that 
is  more  general  and  indefinite.  This  is  in  accord 
with  a  well-known  phenomenon  of  languages.  Of 
many  terms  is  it  true  that  when  once  they  pass 
from  the  specific  sense  in  which  they  are  chiefl.y  and 
clearly  employed,  they  take  on  a  number  of  sec- 
ohdar}'  meanings  which  shade  into  each  other  by 
degrees.  It  is  thus  with  the  wordeV/cA,7;crta'(eccZesMi). 
Passing  from  the  definite  conception  of  the  local 
assembly  it  becomes  by  siiades  of  meaning  more  and 
more  general ;  nor  are  these  shades  of  meaning 
alwa.vs  clearly  defined.  For  convenience  they  may 
be  designated  as  generic,  collective,  and  universal. 
There  seem  to  be  a  few  j)laces  where  what  is  called 
a  ''generic'"  sense  of  the  word  appears.  These  are 
1  Tim.  8:15,  with  probably  Matt.  18:17;  1  Cor. 
12:28;  James  5:14.  It  must  be  acknowledged  that 
many  scholars  reject  this  generic  sense,  and  explain 
these  passages  by  reference  either  to  the  local  or 
universal  church.  The  most  that  can  be  claimed  is 
that  the  generic  sense  is  here  probable  and  allow- 
able. It  is  here  that  we  notice  the  first  shade  of  de- 
parture from  the  strict  local  sense.  Where  our 
Lord  says :  '*Tell  it  to  the  church ;''  and  where  James 


46  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

bids,  in  the  case  of  sickness,  to  ''send  for  the  elders 
of  the  church."  the  sense  is  still  clearly  local,  but 
with  just  a  trace  of  suggestion  toward  the  generic 
sense,  that  is  to  saj,  any  church,  the  church  which 
may  be  reached,  the  church  as  an  accepted  and  well- 
understood  institution.  In  1  Cor.  12  :28  where  Paul 
says:  "God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  apos- 
tles, secondly  prophets,"  and  so  on,  the  local  sense 
is  still  possible,  meaning  any  local  church,  and  so 
all  the  local  churches.  But  the  mention  of  the  Apos- 
tles, who  were  not  officers  in  the  local  churches,  but 
leaders  over  the  whole  body  of  Christians,  makes  it 
possible  that  even  a  more  general  sense  of  the  word 
is  here  intended.  A  very  interesting  passage  is  1 
Tim.  3:15,  where  Paul  saj^s:  "The  church  of  the  liv- 
ing God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  Here 
the  generic  sense  is  more  probable.  It  is  impossible 
to  restrict  the  meaning  here  to  any  local  church, 
"ffint  yet  the  local  coloring  is  so  strong  that  the 
phrase  can  hardly  be  considered  to  mean  either  the 
whole  g:eneral  body  of  Christians,  or  the  church  uni- 
versal in  its  broadest  sense.  These  latter  two  are 
of  course  possible  meanings,  but  rather  there  seems 
to  be  in  the  Apostle's  use  here  a  general  sense  of  the 
local  church  for  which  we  have  analogy  in  many  fa- 
miliar expressions.  For  example,  we  say,  ''The 
family  is  the  social  unit,  the  school  is  the  hope  of 
the  country."  Here  we  do  not  mean  any  particular 
family  or  any  particular  school,  and  certainly  there 
is  no  "universal"  sense  in  which  such  language  could 
be  employed.  We  mean  the  institution,  "the  family," 
''the  school,"  used  in  what  might  be  described  as 
both  a  particular  and  a  general  sense  at  the  same 


THE  WORD  "ecclesia. 


47 


time.  Thus  it  appears  that  in  the  phrase,  "the 
chinch  of  the  living  God,  tlie  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth,"  the  conception  is  that  of  the  local  church 
as  an  institution  intended  for  the  support  and  main- 
tenance of  the  truth  of  Ood  throughout  all  time. 

But  leaving  this  generic  sense  as  somewhat  open 
to  question,  we  come  now  to  notice  those  passages 
in  which  the  word  church  is  used  in  a  collective 
sense.  Here  the  conception  is  of  the  unorganized 
mass  of  professed  believers  in  Christ  more  or  less 
widely  extended.  It  is  common  to  call  this  the 
"church  visible''  as  distinguished  from  the  "church 
invisible""— the  sum  total  of  Christians  in  the  world, 
or  in  any  locality.  We  first  notice  the  group  of  pas- 
sages in  which  the  church  is  mentioned  as  the  ob- 
ject of  SauTs  persecution:  Acts  8:3;  1  Cor.  15:9; 
Gal.  1 :13 ;  Phil.  3  :G.  These  might  be  taken  to  mean 
the  church  at  Jerusalem,  there  being  as  yet  no  other 
organization,  but  it  seems  more  natural  to  see  here 
a  more  general  signification  for  the  word;  that  is, 
it  is  used  to  describe  the  followers  of  Christ  col- 
lectively. The  Apostle  persecuted  Christ's  people 
wherever  he  found  them.  All  who  professed  the 
name  of  Christ  were  the  objects  of  his  rage. 

Another  group  of  passages  represents  the  church 
as  more  or  less  extended  abroad  :  Acts  9  :31 ;  Rom. 
16:23;  1  Cor.  10:32.  The  passage  in  Acts  9:31  is 
worthy  of  special  notice:  "So  the  church  through- 
out all  Judea,  Galilee  and  Samaria  had  peace."  In 
the  Authorized  Version  the  word  is  in  the  plural, 
"The  churches  throughout,"  etc.;  and  in  former 
times  the  passage  was  used  as  an  example  of  the 
local  sense,  but  the  best  texts,  which  have  been  fol- 


48  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

lowed  by  the  Revised  Version,  give  the  word  in  the 
singular,  and  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  this 
is  correct.  How  then  are  we  to  explain  the  passage? 
It  is  possible  to  take  it  as  meaning  the  church  at 
Jerusalem  whose  members  were  scattered  through 
the  region  named,  just  as  it  is  possible  to  interpret 
the  church  of  Saul's  persecution  as  being  the  Jeru- 
salem church  whose  members  were  scattered  about; 
but  it  seems  better  here  to  understand  a  more  gen- 
eral conception  of  the  word,  viz.,  that  it  means 
Christian  people  throughout  those  regions — the  body 
of  Christ's  followers  considered  collectively.  Of 
course  those  who  believe  in  a  great  organized  body, 
a  visible  church  universal,  will  find  here  already  an 
indication  of  that  use  of  the  word,  but  there  is  no 
trace  of  any  organized  general  body  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  it  would  be  a  violent  assumption  to 
take  this  one  passage  as  indicating  the  formation 
of  such  a  body  in  the  apostolic  times.  It  is  also  pos- 
sible to  give  to  the  phrase  the  most  general  meaning 
of  all,  the  "church  universal,"  considered  as  repre- 
sented in  all  Christians  throughout  the  districts  men- 
tioned ;  but  on  the  whole  the  collective  use  of  the 
term  here  better  fits  all  the  facts.  We  may  here 
again  mention  the  use  of  the  word  in  Rom.  16:23, 
whei*e  Paul  compliments  Gains  as  the  "host  of  the 
church."  He  hardly  means  here  the  local  church; 
for  Gains  would  not  probably  be  entertaining  the 
brethren  of  his  own  place,  unless  it  means  that  the 
church  met  for  worship  at  his  house;  but  the  con- 
nection (compared  with  3  John  5-8)  indicates  a 
large  hospitality  for  any  of  Christ's  people  when 
they  came  along  upon  the  Lord's  business  as  Paul 


THE  WORD  "eCCLESIA."'  49 

himself  had  done.  This  general  collective  sense,  the 
whole  body  of  Christians,  appears  very  plainly  in 
1  Tor.  10  :S2.  where  as  a  class  of  persons  capable  of 
being  ''offended"  the  church  is  reckoned  along  with 
the  Jews  and  the  Greeks:  "Give  no  occasion  of 
stumbling,  either  to  Jews,  or  to  Greeks,  or  to  the 
church  of  God."  Here  it  is  neither  the  "church  uni- 
versal" in  the  broadest  sense,  nor  the  local  church. 
Evidently  a  meaning  somewhat  between  the  two, 
which  embraces  the  collective  number  of  professing 
Christians,  is  the  most  appropriate  sense. 

We  now  notice  those  few,  but  important  passages, 
in  which  the  word  "church"  is  used  in  its  broadest 
meaning,  and  denotes  the  whole  body  of  true  be- 
lievers in  Christ  on  earth  and  in  heaven  and  in  all 
ages.  This  use  of  the  word  is  found  more  especially 
in  the  Episile  to  the  Ephesians  (1:22;  3:10,21; 
5:23-32)  ;  it  also  occurs  in  Col.  1:18,24,  and  in  Heb. 
12:23.  It  is  noteworthy  that  in  Ephesians  the  word 
is  used  only  in  this  general  sense,  and  this  coincides 
with  the  view  that  this  ejustle  was  addressed  to  no 
one  local  church,  but  was  a  sort  of  circular  letter 
to  all  the  churches.  The  broad  sweep  of  the  Apos- 
tle's thought  in  this  noble  passage  is  remarkable. 
He  says  that  "Christ  is  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that 
tilleth  all  in  all."  and  in  another  place  that  "the 
niany-colored  wisdom  of  God  was  made  known 
through  the  church" — and  in  beautiful  language  the 
church  is  described  as  the  bride  of  Christ  whom  he 
loved  and  sanctified  and  intends  to  present  to  him- 
self without  a  spot  or  wrinJvle.*     The  jiassage  from 

*Cf.  Rev.  iy:7,8;  21:2,9. 


50  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Colossians  is  very  similar  in  its  general  scope  and 
meaning  to  that  from  Ephesians.  In  Heb.  12  :23  oc- 
curs the  remarkable  saying,  "The  general  assembly 
and  church  of  the  first-born  who  are  enrolled  in 
heaven,''  where  the  reference  is  clearly  to  the  re- 
deemed who  share  the  blessedness  of  the  immortal 
life  with  God.  This  is  commonly  spoken  of  as  the 
"church  triumphant'' — the  saints  who  have  gone  be- 
fore. 

There  are  two  notable  passages  where  the  exact 
interpretation  of  the  word  "church''  occasions  con- 
siderable difficulty.  In  Matt.  16:18  our  Lord  says 
to  Peter:  "On  this^  rock  I  will  build  my  church, 
and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it.'' 
Certainly  the  strict  local  sense  cannot  here  be  under- 
stood; but  is  it  generic,  collective,  oc-Uttirersal? 
Any  one  of  these  is  possible,  and  each  has  its  de- 
fenders. But  the  generic  meaning  seems  rather 
forced,  and  is  unnecessary.  As  between  the  col- 
lective and  universal  senses  there  is  not  much  to 
choose,  but  on  the  whole  the  latter  is  preferable. 
It  is  as  if  Jesus  would  say  that  on  the  great  truth 
"which  Peter  had  just  declared,  he  would  construct 
as  an  edifice  all  those  who  should  in  all  time  accept 
him  as  Lord — not  the  church  local  as  sample  of  a 
class,  not  merely  the  aggregate  of  professed  Chris- 
tians at  any  place  or  time,  but  the  whole  body  of 
Christ's  redeemed  in  all  ages.  The  other  passage  is 
Actj.  .20 :28 j_!^Take  heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  all 
the  flock  in  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  bishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he 
purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Here  the  generic 
sense  seems  entirely  inappropriate,  and  the  univer- 


THE  WORD  ''eCCLESIA."  51 

sal  much  too  broad.  We  are  left  to  choose,  then, 
between  the  local  and  the  collective  senses.  Some- 
thing can  be  said  for  the  local  meaning,  as  the 
Apostle  is  especially  addressing  the  elders  of  the 
Ephesian  church ;  but  the  expression  "all  the  flock," 
and  the  general  tone  of  the  passage  incline  one  to 
adopt  the  collective  sense  here  as  best  giving  the 
meaning — ''Tend  the  people  of  Christ  as  pastors, 
wherever  the  Spirit  may  set  you  in  that  ofifice.'' 

From  this  survey  of  the  various  meanings  of  the 
word  iy.y.f^i(Tia  {ecclcsia)  in  the  New  Testament  we 
may  derive  the  following  conclusions:  (1)  There  is 
no  need  of  the  common  appellations  "universal," 
"invisible,"  "visible,"  >  "militant,"  "triumphant,"  as 
describing  the  church.  All  these  phrases  were  made 
in  later  times,  and  are  not  found  in  Scripture. 
They  are  convenient  designations,  somewhat  poet- 
ical, but  they  may  become  a  trifle  confusing  if  they 
be  allowed  to  suggest  to  our  minds  different  bodies 
or  organizations.  As  has  appeared  from  the  pre- 
ceding discussion,  the  church,  in  the  New  Testament 
senses  of  the  word,  is  a  local  body  of  believers  in 
Christ,  and  then  more  generally,  the  collective  num- 
ber of  professing  Christians,  and  then  most  gener- 
ally of  all,  the  sum  total  of  all  true  believers  every- 
where, and  in  all  times. 

(2)  There  is  no  trace  whatever  of  any  organiza- 
tion beyond  the  local  church.  There  is  no  hierarchy, 
no  governing  power  on  earth,  no  pope  or  gradation 
of  priests;  there  is  no  presbytery  in  the  inodern 
sense,  meaning  an  association  of  local  elders  pre- 
scribing for  the  various  local  churches;  there  is  no 
trace  of  higher  courts.     In  the  Gth  chapter  ot  1 


52  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Corinthiaus  the  Apostle  does,  indeed,  exhort  the 
brethi'eu  not  to  go  to  law  before  the  heathen,  and  to 
refer  their  disputes  to  one  another,  but  he  is  evi- 
dently here  referring  to  the  local  church  and  not 
to  any  higher  court  over  it.  There  is  no  national  or 
territorial  body.  The  only  possible  place  for  such 
interpretation  is  Acts  9:31.  In  all  other  places 
where  regions  or  places  are  mentioned  the  word  is 
used  in  the  plural,  and  as  we  have  seen,  this  one 
passage  does  not  afford  sufficient  ground  to  infer 
the  existence  of  a  territorial  church,  inasmuch  as 
the  general  collective  sense  of  the  word  is  there  ap- 
propriate. And  of  course  there  is  no  suggestion  of 
any  sectarian  bodies  which  take  to  themselves  the 
word  "church.''  There  is  no  hint  that  even  the 
Judaizers  spoke  of  themselves  as  the  ''Judaistic" 
church  as  distinguished  from  their  more  liberal  Gen- 
tile brethren.  In  Rom.  16  :3  Paul  speaks  of  "churches 
of  the  Gentiles/'  but  not  of  a  Gentile  church.  The 
New  Testament  affords  no  sort  of  suggestion  of  such 
sectarian  divisions  and  claims. 

(3)  What  should  be  the  influence  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament usage  of  ecclesia  upon  our  own  use  of  the 
word  ''church?''  For  answer  we  must  say  that  we 
ought  to  retain  and  still  employ  the  two-elearly  de- 
fined New  Testament  meanings — the  local  and  the 
general.  We  must  also  allow  the  signmcation  of  a 
building  as  a  derived  sense  of  the  word.  As  we  saw 
when  we  discussed  the  etymology,  the  English  word 
itself  originally  meant  the  building  and  came  to  de- 
scribe the  assembly.  Now  precisely  the  opposite 
course  has  been  followed  in  those  languages  which 
retain  the  word  ecclesia.    In  both_Greek  and  Latin, 


THE  WORD  "^ECCLESIA."  53 

for  instance,  ceclesia  soon  oanie  to  mean  the  biiild- 
Jng_as_\veJl_as  the  assembly,  and  the  Latin  deriva- 
tives, the  French  eglise  and  the  Italian  chicsa,  re- 
tain both  significations  of  building  and  assembly. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  impropriety  in  using  the  word 
"church''  to  designate  both  the  building  and  the  con- 
gregation, though  it  is  sometimes  inconvenient  be- 
cause of  the  ambiguity.  But  what  shall  we  say  of 
the  other  modern  uses  of  the  word?  Certainly  these 
are  not  New  Testament  uses,  but  the  present  state 
of  the  language  requires  their  employment;  and  then 
by  courtesy,  where  certain  bodies  of  Christians  call 
themselves  a  church,  and  are  commonly  so  denomi- 
nated, we  may  apply  the  name  to  them,  but  without 
implying  that  bodies  of  Christians  improperly  or- 
ganized are  a  true  New  Testament  church. 


54  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  III. 

CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS  OF  A  CHURCH. 

I.  The  church  in  itself. 

1.  Organization.    No  account  of  the  act. 

(1)  An  organism,  not  a  loose  assembly. 

(2)  Members — actual  believers  in  Christ. 

2.  Functions. 

(1)  Regulation  of  the  membership. 

(2)  Election  of  officers, 

(3)  Maintenance  of  worship  and  ordinances. 

(4)  General  management  of  afifiairs. 

II.  The  church  in  its  relations. 

1.  To  other  churches. 

(1)  Negatively. 

(b)  No  common  human  superior. 

(c)  No  territorial  union. 

(d)  No  general  organization. 

(2)  Positively.    Contact  and  community. 

(a)  Common  faith. 

(b)  Common  life  and  customs. 

(c)  Common  relation  to  Apostles  and  other 

leaders. 

2.  To  society. 

(1)  To  government. 

(a)  No  organic  connection. 

(b)  Submission  as  far  as  right. 

(2)  To  the  life  of  men — active  not  ascetic. 

(3)  To  men  as  sinful.    Effort  to  save. 


CHAPTER  III. 

CHURCH  POLITY  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Passing  bv  the  cases  of  doubtful  ineaniuji.  and 
leaving  out  the  notion  of  the  church  universal,  we 
may  now  confine  our  attention  to  the  local  bodies 
which  are  described,  or  mentioned,  or  at  least  under- 
stood, in  most  of  the  passages  noticed  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter.  Our  problem  now  is  to  ascertain  what 
we  can  from  the  New  Testament  itself  as  to  the 
character  and  functions  of  these  churches.  We  are 
to  consider  how  and  of  whom  they  were  comi)OseJ, 
what  were  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  members  of 
the  church,  what  actions  the  church  itself  performed, 
and  how  these  various  local  bodies  were  related  to 
each  other,  to  the  civil  government  and  to  society. 
In  a  word,  we  are  to  consider  the  local  church  in 
itself  and  in  its  relations. 

Considering  the  church  itself,  we  first  inquire  how 
the  New  Testament  churches  were  formed  and  of 
whom  they  were  composed.  We  have  no  account  of 
the  act  or  mode  of  procedure  by  which  any  church 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  was  organized,  or 
constituted.  The  probabilities  are  that  the  method 
was  very  simple,  that  Jjie  Apostles,  or_leaders  au^.  ^^ 
thorized  by  them,  merely  recognized  the  believers  in  ^^ 
/  Clirist  in  any  one  place  as  a  church  without  any 
formal    or    ceremonious    act    of    constitution.     We 


56  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

should  infer  that  there  would  be  services  of  worship, 
and  doubtless  something  in  the  nature  of  a  cove- 
nant, or  agreement  of  the  members  with  each  other 
to  serve  the  Lord  and  maintain  the  worship  and 
ordinances  of  his  appointment.  But  this  is  simply 
inference;  there  is  no  explicit  statement. 

Each  church  was  an  organism,  a  society',  and  not 
simply  a  loose  assembly  or  meeting.  One  or  two 
passages  may  possibly  bear  the  meaning  of  a  ''con- 
gregation,'' or  ''meeting,"  as  the  significance  of  the 
word  ccclesia.  but  the  overwhelming  implication, 
where  the  churches  are  mentioned,  or  even  alluded 
to  as  such,  is  that  they  were  organized  bodies,  and 
not  mere  aggregations  of  followers  of  Christ.  This 
appeal's  from  the  usage  of  the  word  ecclesia,  dis- 
cussed in  the  last  chapter,  and  more  especially  from 
the  names,  location  and  other  characteristics  of  the 
New  Testament  churches.  For  example,  the  churches 
at  Jerusalem  and  Antioch  mentioned  in  Acts  could 
not  be  regarded  as  mere  gatherings,  or  meetings, 
of  the  believers  who  lived  at  those  places.  They  are 
mentioned  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the  invariable 
impression  that  they  were  a  definite  body  of  persons. 
Even  more  clearly  does  this  appear  from  the  epistles 
to  individual  churches  which  are  addressed  as  if  they 
were  organized  bodies,  as  at  Corinth,  Philippi,  Thes- 
salonica,  Rome;  so  also  the  seven  churches  so  often 
mentioned  in  the  early  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse. 

The  members  of  the  church  are  in  every  case,  either 
by  direct  statement,  or  necessary  implication,  rep- 
resented as  actual  disciples  of  Christ.  This  in- 
cluded, no  doubt,  in  every  instance,  four  particu- 
lars, namely,  conversion  (including  regeneration  and 


CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS.  57 

repentanco).  faith.  i)rofession  and  baptism.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  cite  all  the  passages  which  bear 
on  these  points,  a  few  on  each  will  suffice.  As  to 
the  requirement  of  conversion  see  John  3:3,5;  Acts 
2:47;  Rom.  1:6,7;  r'Cor.'l:2.  That  faith  was  a 
necessary  condition  of  membership  appears  from 
John  3:16,18,36;  Acts  2:44;  Rom.  1:8;  Col.  1:2,4. 
It  is  also  apparent  that  the  believers  must  make 
public  confession,  or  profession,  of  Christ  as  their 
Lord.  Cf.  Matt.  10:32;  Rom.  10:9,10;  1  Tim.  6:12; 
1  John  4 :15.  That  baptism  was  also  a  necessary 
prerequisite  of  membership  appears  from  the  great 
Commission,  Matt.  28:19;  and  from  Acts  2:41;  8:12; 
Rom.  6:1-4. 

Our  next  inquiry  is  as  to  the  functions  of  the 
local  church.  What  acts  did  it  perform  as  a  church? 
What  were  its  rights,  duties  and  privileges  of  man- 
agement and  direction?  We  may  note  here  four 
points  of  interest:  (1)  The  regulation  of  its  own 
members.  This  in  turn  involves  three  things:  (a) 
Their  reception.  This  is  argued  from  the  fact  that 
it  is  the  natural  right  of  any  society  to  pass  upon 
the  applications  of  those  who  would  become  mem- 
bers and  determine  the  matter  by  vote.  There  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  a  church  would  decline 
to  exercise  this  usual  custom.  Besides  it  is  in- 
volved in  the  right  to  exclude  from  membership, 
which  was  sometimes  a  duty  of  the  church,  as  we 
shall  presently  see.  Further,  the  right  of  deciding 
upon  meml)ers  is  distinctly  implied  in  Acts  9:26,  in 
the  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  experienced  some 
difficulty  in  being  received  by  the  brethren  at  Jeru- 
salem until  Barnabas  took  up  his  case  and  urged 


58  rOLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

his  reception :  and  in  Rom.  14  :1,  where  the  Apostle 
exhorts  the  church  to  receive  even  those  who  were 
weak  in  the  faith,  provided  of  course  that  their 
faith  was  genuine,  (b)  Their  discipline.  Cf.  Matt. 
18:17;  Rom.  16:17;  1  Cor.  5:1-5;  2  Cor.  2:6-8;  Gal. 
6:1;  1  Thess.  5:14;  2  Thess.  3:6,14,15;  Revelation, 
chapters  1-3.  A  careful  study  and  comparison  of 
these  various  passages  will  indicate  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  church  to  exercise  a  watchful  super- 
vision over  its  own  members,  to  punish  their  delin- 
quencies, to  rebuke  them,  and  in  some  cases  even  to 
withdraw  from  them,  or  cast  them  out  of  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  church,  (c)  Their  edification.  Cf. 
Eph.  4:11-16;  1  Cor.  chapters  12-14;  Col.  3:12-17. 
Here  the  church  is  commanded  to  edify  itself  in 
love,  to  purge  itself  from  disorders,  and  to  hold  fast 
to  the  Head,  even  Christ,  making  increase  of  the 
body.  Clearly  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  attend 
to  its  own  orderly  growth  and  to  the  spiritual  nur- 
ture and  development  of  its  individual  members. 

(2)  The  election  of  its  officers,  servants  and  mes- 
sengers. This  is  shown  in  Acts  6:1-6,  where  the 
seven  appointed  to  look  after  the  distribution  of  the 
funds  at  Jerusalem,  were  chosen  by  the  whole  body 
of  the  brethren;  also  in  Acts  15:  22,  where  Judas 
and  Silas  were  selected  by  the  church  to  go  with 
Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Antioch  concerning  the  ques- 
tion raised  about  circumcision;  again  in  1  Cor.  16:3, 
where  the  Apostle  expects  the  church  at  Corinth  to 
select  messengers  to  go  with  him  to  Jerusalem  bear- 
ing their  bounty  to  the  poor  saints  residing  there; 
also  in  2  Cor.  8  :32,  where  in  reference  to  the  same 
matter  the  Apostle  speaks  of  Titus  and  others  as 


CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS.  59 

messengers  of  the  cluirches.  implving  tlieir  appoint- 
ment by  the  brethren;  and  finally  in  I*liil.  2:25, 
where  Epaphroditns  is  spoken  of  as  '*yoiir  messen- 
ger and  minister  to  my  need."  There  are  two  pas- 
sages which  may  be  considered  as  somewhat  ad- 
verse to  this  view.  One  is  Acts  14 :23,  where  in  re- 
gard to  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  their  first  mission- 
are  tour  it  is  said :  '"^And  when  they  had  appointed 
for  them  elders  in  every  church  and  had  prayed  with 
fasting,  they  commended  them  to  the  Lord  on  whom 
they  had  believed."  This  much  discussed  passage 
seems  to  imply  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  appointed 
the  elders  for  the  churches;  but  the  word  here  ren- 
dered "appoint"  is  somewhat  difficult,  and  the  opin- 
ions of  commentators  are  somewhat  divided  as  to 
its  exact  meaning.  It  most  probably  refers  to  the 
solemn  induction  into  office  of  those  who  had  been 
chosen  by  the  people,  perhaps  at  the  advice  and  sug- 
gestion of  the  Apostles ;  or  it  may  be  that  the  Apos- 
tles simply  superintended  the  election  of  elders  and 
confirmed  it  by  a  public  appointment,  somewhat  like 
our  modern  ordination.  If,  however,  it  means  that 
these  Apostles  actually  appointed  men  to  the  office 
of  elders  over  the  churches,  we  can  hardly  conceive 
that  they  did  so  without  consultation  with  the 
brethren.  We  should  infer  this  certainly  from  the 
passages  before  quoted,  particularly  seeing  how  care- 
ful Paul  was  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of  mes- 
sengers concerning  the  bounty  he  was  to  carry  to 
Jerusalem.  The  other  passage  is  Titus  1:5,  where 
Paul  says:  "For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that 
thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  were 
wanting,  and  appoint  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  gave 


60  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

thee  charge/'  Here  the  word  translated  "appoint" 
is  not  the  same  as  that  used  in  the  passage  in  Acts, 
and  may  more  easily  be  taken  to  mean  the  simple 
induction  into  office,  without  implying  selection  on 
the  part  of  Titus  alone. 

(3)  The  maintenance  of  worship  and  the  ordi- 
nances. That  this  was  one  of  the  recognized  func- 
tions of  the  local  church  appears  from  a  number  of 
places  in  Acts  and  Epistles.  See  Acts  1:13,14; 
2:1,42,46,47;  11:26;  13:l,2f.;  1  Cor.  14th  chapter. 
Noticing  only  a  few  of  these  we  observe  in  Acts  1 :13 
the  first  reference  to  the  body  of  the  disciples  after 
the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  where  it  is  said  that  they 
''went  up  into  the  upper  chamber,"  and  that  they 
'^continued  stedfastly  in  prayer."  In  the  second 
chapter  of  Acts  they  are  described  as  being  all  to- 
gether in  one  place  when  the  pentecostal  blessing 
came  upon  them ;  and  in  another  place  it  is  said 
that  the  new  disciples  "continued  stedfastly  in  the 
Apostles'  teaching  and  fellowship,  in  the  breaking 
of  bread,  and  the  prayers."  In  1  Cor.  11,  the  Apos- 
tle gives  extended  directions  about  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  rebuking  the  Corinthian 
church  for  their  misconceptions  and  unseemly  con- 
duct in  regard  to  that  sacred  rite. 

(4)  In  general,  the  management  of  its  own  af- 
fairs. Each  church  judged  for  itself  and  acted  for 
itself  as  a  unit,  and  attended  to  its  own  business. 
The  one  passage  of  Scripture  which  sums  up  the 
whole  duty  of  a  church  in  regard  to  its  own  work- 
ings is  that  in  which  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians 
(1  Cor.  14:40),  "Let  everything  be  done  decently 
and  in  order."     We  infer  this  general  management 


CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS.  61 

from  the  natural  reason  that  any  organized  body  is 
properly  charged  with  the  management  of  its  own 
affairs ;  besides  that,  the  general  tenor  of  the  Scrip- 
ture language  is  such  as  to  show  this;  then  the  de- 
scriptions of  the  churches,  the  responsibilities  en- 
joined upon  them  and  the  commands  given  to  them 
indicate  that  they  were  charged  with  the  direction 
and  control  of  their  own  concerns. 

We  pass  now  to  consider  the  church  in  its  outer 
relations.  Its  ministries  were  not  to  be  confined  to 
itself,  but  were  to  reach  out  toward  others.  Its  life 
was  not  to  be  self-centcrc<l.  but  expansive  and  help- 
ful. Each  church  stood  in  intimate  relations  with 
other  churches,  and  in  more^general  relations  to  the 
world  of  men  around  it.  We  notice  then,  first,  the 
relations  of  the  churches  to  each  other,  and  it  is 
convenient  to  view  these  in  their  negative  and  posi- 
tive aspects.  On  the  negati\'e  side  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  there  was  no  subordination  of  one  church 
to  another.  If  anything  is  plain  in  the  Scriptures, 
certainly  this  is.  The  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts, 
which  has  sometimes  been  adduced  to  show  that  the 
church  at  Jerusalem  exercised  a  controlling  influ- 
ence over  others,  if  properly  understood  has  just  the 
opposite  bearing.  Some  men  had  gone  down  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch  and  taught  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  in  order  to  be  saved  must  become  Jews, 
and  keep  the  whole  law  by  submitting  to  the  rite  of 
circumcision,  and  be  received  as  proselytes  into  the 
Jewish  nation.  On  this  question,  with  marked  for- 
bearance toward  both  parties,  but  without  depart- 
ing one  iota  from  the  gospel  i)rinciple  of  faith  in 
Christ  as  essential  to  salvation,  the  church  at  Jeru- 


^ 


62  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

salem  sent  a  courteous  and  loving  letter  by  the 
hands  of  special  messengers  to  say  that  in  their 
opinion  it  was  not  necessary  for  Gentiles  to  become 
Jews  first  in  order  to  become  Christians,  but  in  or- 
der to  refrain  from  wounding  the  sensibilities  of 
the  Jewish  brethren  it  was  right  that  Gentile  con- 
verts should  avoid  certain  offensive  practices,  as 
well  as  keep  the  moral  law.  Here  there  is  no  hint 
of  lordship  on  the  part  of  the  Jerusalem  church 
over  the  church  at  Antioch.  The  entire  absence  of 
such  a  note  in  the  letter  of  the  Jerusalem  church  is 
remarkable ;  and  as  to  the  Antioch  church,  it  is  clear 
that  it  was  only  seeking  advice  on  a  difficult  point 
from  its  older  sister  at  Jerusalem.  Nor  does  there' 
appear  anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  any 
trace  whatever  of  superiority,  or  lordship  of  one 
church,  or  set  of  churches,  over  another. 

Further,  not  only  was  there  no  subjection  of 
churches  to  churches,  but  there  was  none  to  any  com- 
mon human  authority.  Of  course  all  the  churches 
were  under  the  supreme  headship  of  Christ  and 
under  the  superintendence  delegated  by  him  to  the 
Apostles,  but  this  authority  was  moral  and  advisory 
rather  than  controlling  or  mandatory,  and  was  ex- 
ercised with  marked  moderation.  Consult  the  fol- 
lowing passages :  1  Cor.,  7 :6,  10,  17,  25 ;  9 :1-15 ; 
14:37;  16:1;  1  Thess.  2 :3-12 ;  1:2;  2  Thess.  3:6,10,12; 
2  Pet.  3  :2 ;  3  John  9.  Here  we  find  Paul  giving  his 
judgment  "as  one  that  had  obtained  mercy  of  the 
Lord  to  be  faithful."  There  is  no  assumption  of  au- 
thority. So  far  is  this  absent  that  some  have  even 
thought  that  the  Apostle  spoke  slightingly  of  his 
own  inspiration.    And  in  still  another  place  he  as- 


CHARACTER  AND  FUXCTIONS.  63 

¥ierts  his  apostlesliip  aud  makes  an  appeal  to  the 
Corinthians,  saying:  ''If  to  others  I  am  not  an 
apostle,  yet  I  am  to  you ;  for  the  seal  of  my  apostle- 
ship  are  \e  in  the  Lord."  This  is  an  appeal  to  their 
affection  rather  than  to  any  official  prerogative  on 
his  part.  With  this  note  Peter  and  John  are  in  ac- 
cord, the  former  speaking  of  himself  as  a  fellow- 
elder  aud  exhorting  as  such  his  fellow-elders  (1  Pet. 
5:1),  and  in  another  place  (2  Pet.  3:2),  speaking 
of  the  "'commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour 
through  your  Apostles."  John  (3  John  9)  seems  to 
assume  a  little  more  than  Paul  and  Peter,  for  in 
writing  to  Gains  he  remarks  that  he  had  written 
something  to  the  church,  but  that  Diotrephes,  who 
loved  to  have  the  pre-eminence  among  them,  did  not 
accept  his  admonitions,  and  goes  on  to  indicate  that 
Diotrephes  would  hear  from  him  when  he  arrived. 
But  the  loving  .John  was  capable  of  no  arrogant 
tyranny,  however  .stern  his  rebukes  of  evil. 

The  jiosition  of  the  Apostles  was  peculiar,  and 
even  if  we  grant  to  them  the  fullest  measure  of  au- 
thority over  the  churches,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
any  successors  were  appointed,  or  intended  to  be 
appointed,  after  them.  There  is  also  no  hint  of  any 
council  or  college,  nor  of  any  general  assembly  or 
body,  either  hierarchical  or  representative,  which 
held  authority  over  the  individual  churches. 

Again,    there    was    no    territorial    union    of    the 

churches.    We  read  of  the  churches  of  Judaea  (Gal. 

"T:22),  of  Galatia  (Gal.  l:2;TCor.  16:1),  of  Mace- 

_donia^  (2  Cor.  8:  1)   and  of  the  seven  churches  of 

Asia  Minor   (Rev.  1:4,  etc.).     But  the  mention  of 

these  churches  is  not  made  in  a  way  to  suggest  any- 


64  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

thing-  like  a  territorial  or  national  organization  in- 
cluding them  as  constituents.  The  only  passage 
which  in  the  least  favors  such  a  view  is  that  in  Acts 
9:31  which  was  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
and  for  which  another  explanation  is  more  probable 
than  that  the  church  there  spoken  of  was.  a  terri- 
torial body.  And  finally,  there  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  any  general  organization  of  any  sort. 
Certainly  not  for  purposes  of  government,  and  ap- 
parently not  even  for  conference  and  co-operation. 
How  these  were  maintained  without  a  directive  su- 
perior body  we  shall  now  see. 

There  were  positive  relations  of  the  churches  to 
each  other  involving  noteworthy  points  of  contact 
and  co-operation.  It  appears  from  the  preceding 
discussion  that  the  mutual  relation  of  the  apostolic 
churches  was  that  of  independence  and  equality, 
and  this  view  is  confirmed  by  the  general  tenor  of 
Scripture  teaching  and  by  the  way  in  which  the 
churches  are  mentioned.  Yet  there  was  a  certain 
union  and  interdependence  of  these  local  bodies.  It 
was  not  organic  or  governmental,  but  was  rather 
that  of  a  community  of  life  and  interests.  There 
was  a  common  faith.  We  find  this  in  Eph.  4:5, 
where  the  familiar  language  is  found,  "One  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all^" 
and  in  Titus  1 :4  where  Paul  speaks  of  Titus  as  his 
true  child  ''after  a  common  faith;"  and  likewise 
Peter  in  his  second  Epistle  1 :2  writes  to  those  who 
have  ''obtained  like  precious  faith,"  and  Jude  in 
well-known  words  exhorts  the  brethren  that  they 
should  "contend  earnestly  for  the  faith,  once  for 


CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS.  65 

all  delivered  to  the  saints."     (See  also  1  Cor.  11:2, 
2;^;  Rom.  6:17;  Acts  2:42;  1  Tim.  1:13.) 

There  was  also  a  certain  community  of  life,  that 
is,  a^inTila_ritx..Qf  organization,  of  worship,  or  ordi- 
nanc^,__of  character,  of  customs.  There  are  many 
allusions  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  which  make 
this  plain.  Of  course  there  must  have  been  some  dif- 
ference in  details,  but  the  general  features  of  the 
churches  in  the  apostolic  age  are  the  same.  (Be- 
sides the  preceding,  see  1  Cor.  7 :17 ;  11 :16.) 

Again,  we  may  note  that  there  was  a  com,mon 
relation  to  the  Apostles  and  other  teachers.     The 
churches  had  a  common  possession,  so  to  speak,  in 
those  whom  the  Lord  had  placed  over  them  for  their 
guidance  and  instruction.     This  relation  was   not 
one  of  submission  to  anything  like  a  hierarchy  or 
an  organized  body  of  government,  as  we  have  before 
seen,  but  it  was  one  of  cordial  respect  and  deference 
to  those  who  were  divinely  appointed  to  found  and 
teach  the  churches.    This  we  note  of  Paul,  and  in  a 
measure  of  Peter  and  some  others,  and  it  may  be  in- 
ferred for  the  general  body  of  the  Apostles.     The 
travels  and  labors  of  Paul  are  well  known,  and  his 
contact   with   many   different   churches   appears   in 
the  notices  of  his  life  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles. 
Nor  was  this  work  of  mingling  among  the  churches 
confined  to  the  Apostles.     There  were  some  others 
who  seem  to  have  occupied  a  sort  of  general  relation 
to  the  churches.     Philip    (Acts  8:5-40)    appears  in 
different  places  preaching  the  gospel.    Apollos  like- 
wise (Acts  18:24-28;  10  :1 ;  1  Cor.  l:12f.;  16:12)  is 
found  both  at  Ephesus  and  at  Corinth,  where  much 
against    his  will,    he  was  brought    into  a  sort  of 


66  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

rivalry  with  Paul.  Tliere  are  several  notices  of  that 
admirable  and  helpful  couple,  Aquila  and  Priscilla, 
who  appear  in  different  places  at  different  times  as 
laborers  in  the  gospel  and  loving  helpers  of  the 
Apostle  Paul.  (Acts  18 :1,2,18,19 ;  Rom.  16  :3 ;  1  Cor. 
16:19;  2  Tim.  1:19.) 

Then  there  were  certain  common  interests  which 
the  churches  had,  and  especially  was  this  true  of 
contiguous  churches;  for  example,  the  churches  of 
Galatia  had  an  epistle  addressed  to  them  in  common 
because  they  were  exposed  to  the  same  dangers. 
How  many  of  these  churches  there  were  we  do  not 
know,  but  it  is  possible  that  they  existed  at  the  capi- 
tals of  the  several  districts  of  the  Galatian  coun- 
try, Pessinus,  Ancyra  and  Tavium.  Then  the 
churches  of  Colosse,  Hierapolis  and  Laodicea  are 
mentioned  together  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians 
as  being  exposed  to  danger  from  heresy,  a  sort  of 
incipient  Gnosticism  that  was  beginning  to  show 
itself.  Again,  in  2  Cor.  1 :1,  the  churches  of  Achaia 
and  Corinth  are  mentioned  together,  and  so  with 
the  Seven  of  Asia  Minor,  addressed  in  the  first  two 
chapters  of  Revelation. 

Further,  there  w^as  at  least  in  one  notable  instance 
a  common  icork  in  which  several  separate  churches 
took  part,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  there  were 
other  similar  cases.  This,  as  is  well  known,  was 
the  collection  for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem 
(Rom.  15:26;  2  Cor.  8th  and  9th  chapters,  and  Gal. 
2:10.)  A  careful  study  of  the  8th  and  9th  chapters 
of  Second  Corinthians  will  bring  out  many  points  of 
interest  regarding  the  collection  and  management 
of  this  fund  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  brethren  at 


CHARACTER  AND  FUNCTIONS.  67 

Jerusalem.  We  may  notice  here,  too,  that  Phoebe 
(Rom.  16:1)  seems  to  have  had  some  business  with 
several  churches.  She  is  cordially  commended  to 
the  church  at  Rome,  though  she  is  a  servant  or 
deaconess  of  the  church  at  CenchrcfP,  and  the  breth- 
ren are  exhorted  to  pay  attention  to  what  she  had 
to  say  to  them.  We  should  notice  here  also  the  com- 
mendation which  John  passes  upon  the  generous 
Gaius  (3  John  8),  with  the  request  to  speed  on  their 
way  those  who  had  gone  forth  among  the  Gentiles 
for  the  sake  and  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  receiving 
nothing  from  those  to  whom  they  ministered,  so 
that  Christian  people  may  be  ^'fellow-workers  with 
the  truth." 

We  must  now  give  attention  to  the  more  general 
relations  of  the  churches,  not  to  themselves  alone, 
but  to  society,  to  men,  to  the  world.  There  was, 
first,  the  relation  to  civil  government.  This  was 
purely  negative  so  far  as  any  organic  connection 
was  concerned.  Our  Lord  taught  (Matt.  22:15-22) 
that  a  citizen  should  perform  his  duties  of  citizen- 
ship without  conflict  with  those  which  he  owed  to 
God.  Paul  at  various  times  used  his  rights  as  a 
Roman  citizen,  either  for  personal  safety  or  to 
help  on  his  cause.  Paul  (Rom,  13:lf.)  and  Peter 
(1  Pet.  2:13)  both  taught  submission  to  the  civil 
authorities  as  a  Christian  duty.  It  is  needless  to 
say  that  such  submission  was  to  be  qualified  by  the 
higher  obedience  to  God  and  limited  to  the  duties 
of  citizenship. 

There  was  also  a  very  important  relation  to  the 
life  and  work  of  mankind.  The  church  in  its  life 
and  activity  was  not  to  withdraw  from  the  world. 


68  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

but  was  to  be  an  exemplary  moulding  organism 
within  the  world.  All  the  relations  of  life  were  to 
feel  the  influence  of  the  church's  hol}^  ministry.  In 
our  Lord's  beautiful  language  (John  17:14-16) 
prayer  is  made  that  his  people  should  not  be  taken 
out  of  the  world  but  kept  from  the  evil.  In  1  Cor. 
7;29-31  the  Apostle  pleads  that  Christians  should 
"use  this  world  as  not  abusing  it,"  and  in  Eph. 
5:22-6:9  the  whole  range  of  domestic  duties  is 
touched  with  a  delicate  and  skillful  hand.  Other 
such  passages  will  readily  occur  to  mind.  Further 
there  was  to  be  the  relation  to  the  world  as  sinful 
and  condemned.  Active  work  for  the  salvation  of 
men  was  the  high  and  holy  mission  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament church.  This,  we  infer,  was  to  be  done  both 
by  individual  effort  on  the  part  of  the  members,  and 
more  generally  also  by  union  and  co-operation  of 
the  members  in  sending  the  gospel  abroad.  (Acts 
13:1-3;  14:26,27;  Phil.  4:10-18;  3  John  5-10,  and 
others.) 


OFFK'KRS  OK  THE   CHURCHES.  69 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  IV. 

OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

I.  Difficulties  of  the  subject. 

1.  Prepossession, 

2.  Lack  of  data. 

3.  Interpretation. 

4.  Classification. 

II.  The  general  offices. 
1.  The  Apostles. 

(1)  Personnel. 

(a)  The  Twelve. 

(b)  Matthias. 

(c)  Paul. 

(d)  Others  called  "apostles." 

(2)  Qualifications. 

(a)  The  call  and  mission. 

(b)  Testimony  to  Christ's  resurrection. 

(c)  "Signs." 

(d)  Authority  and  privilege. 

(3)  Continuance. 

(a)  No  direct  provision  . 

(b)  What  may  be  inferred. 
2.  Other  general  officers. 

( 1 )  Prophets. 

(2)  Evangelists. 

(3)  Teachers. 

III.  Doubtful  official  terms. 

1.  In  I  Cor.  12:28,  "Helps,  governments." 

2.  In  2  Cor.  8:22,  "Messengers." 

3.  In  Rev.  2 :1,  etc.,  "Angel  of  the  church." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

CHURCH    POLITY    IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

OFFICERS  OF  THE   CHURCHES APOSTLES_,  PROPHETS  AND 

OTHERS. 

In  studying  the  oflScers  of  the  New  Testament 
churches  we  have  one  of  the  most  important  and  diffi- 
cult matters  connected  with  our  general  subject  of 
church  polity,  and  one  which  has  had  thorough  in- 
vestigation and  discussion  from  every  point  of  view. 
The  evidence  has  been  most  carefully  sifted  and 
often  strained  in  the  interest  of  every  form  of  church 
polity,  and  of  many  a  critical  theory.  The  surpris- 
ing thing  is  that  after  all  these  investigations  there 
should  still  be  so  many  unsolved  problems  and  so 
much  difficulty  in  getting  at  the  exact  truth. 

Our  first  duty  is  frankly  to  consider  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  subject.  The  first  of  these,  as  already 
noted,  is  that  of  prepossession.  It  is  very  hard, 
if  not  impossible,  to  avoid  carrying  back  to  the  New 
Testament  the  ideas  of  later  times,  according  to  the 
point  of  view  of  the  investigator. 

Another  difficulty  is  as  to  the  amount  of  light  which 
may  be  derived  from  the  New  Testament  itself, 
without  reference  to  subsequent  times,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  church  officers.  Not  very  much  is  said  on  the 
point,  and  that  little  is  not  very  clear.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  there  were  official  men  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament churches,  as  there  must  be  in  all  societies  or 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  71 

organized  bodies.  In  Rom.  12  ft  and  1  Thess.  5  :12 
there  is  indication  of  some  classifying  or  distinc- 
tion among  the  leaders  in  the  churches.  But  there 
are  only  two  passages  (1  Cor.  12:28  and  Eph.  4:11) 
where  anything  like  a  list  of  the  various  officers  is 
given,  though  in  some  places,  like  riiil.  1 :1,  differ- 
ent ones  are  mentioned  together,  and  there  are  a 
number  of  passages  where  one  or  another  is  spoken 
of  separately;  but  after  all,  the  material  that  we 
are  able  to  gather  is  not  great. 

Another  difficulty  lies  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
few  passages  of  Scripture  which  bear  upon  the  sub- 
ject. There  is  uncertainty  as  to  the  exact  meaning 
of  the  terms  used.  The  words  which  describe  the 
officers  of  the  churches  had  not  yet  crystallized  into 
their  technical  significations;  for  example,  even 
the  word  "apostle"  sometimes  means  a  messenger 
(2  Cor.  8:23),  and  the  word  "deacon''  often  means 
only  a  servant.  In  Matt.  20  :28  our  Lord  speaks  of 
himself  as  having  come  "not  to  be  served  but  to 
serve,"  and  the  verb  here  used  is  derived  from  the 
noun  commonly  translated  deacon;  so  also  in  Col. 
1:25  the  Apostle  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as  a  "min- 
ister,"' but  it  is  the  word  usually  translated  deacon; 
and  there  are  other  passages  besides  these  to  the 
same  purport.  As  to  ''elders/'  see  Acts  15,  espe- 
cially verse  23,  ''elder  brethren." 

A  final  difficulty  arises  as  to  classification.  A 
rigid  classification  of  the  various  offices  is  impos- 
sible; for  they  often  touch  and  include  each  other. 
Both  Peter  (1  Pet.  5:1)  and  John  (1  John  1;  3  John 
1)  speak  of  themselves  as  elders.  If  the  "seven" 
mentioned  in  Acts  0:3,5  were  deacons,  some  of  them, 


72  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

as  Stephen  and  Philip,  also  preached.  The  best  that 
we  can  do  is  to  group  the  oflQcers  conveniently  for 
discussion  rather  than  to  attempt  any  strict  classi- 
fication. But  while  exact  cla.-ssification  has  its  dif- 
ficulties, there  yet  seems  to  be  a  real  distinction 
between  those  offices  which  were  elective  and  per- 
manent in  the  local  churches,  and  those  which  ap- 
pear to  be  more  general  in  character  and  of  uncer- 
tain permanence.  Besides  these  there  are  some  offi- 
cial designations  which  offer  special  difficulties  in 
interpretation.  So  in  a  general  way  we  find  three 
fairly  distinct  groups  of  officials  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament:  (1)  General;  (2)  doubtful;  and 
(3)  local  and  permanent.  Under  the  first  are  apos- 
tles, prophets,  teachers,  evangelists ;  under  the  sec- 
ond the  doubtful  ones  whom  it  is  not  possible  posi- 
tively to  place,  as,  ''helps,"  "'governments,"  "mes- 
sengers," "angel  of  the  church;"  under  the  third 
come  bishops,  elders,  pastors,  and  deacons.  The 
first  two  groups  fall  to  be  discussed  in  this  chap- 
ter, the  third  will  occupy  us  in  the  next. 

AVe  take  up  first  the  Apostles.  The  Scriptures 
which  bear  upon  this  office  are:  Matt.  10:2;  Luke 
6:13;  22:14;  John  13:16;  Acts  1:2,15-26;  8:1,14; 
11:1;  14:14;  15:2-33;  Rom.  1:1;  1  Cor.  1:1;  9:1,2; 
12:28;  2  Cor.  8:23;  Gal.  1:1;  Eph.  2:20;  3:5;  4:11; 
Phil.  2:25;  Heb.  3:1;  Rev.  18:20.  Without  going 
into  detailed  discussion  of  these  Scriptures,  we  may 
gather  up  their  general  teachings  in  regard  to  the 
apostolic  office  in  the  following  observations:  (a) 
The  original  Twelve  were  specially  selected  and  ap- 
pointed  by"our  Lord  after  a  night  spent  in  prayer, 
and  were  by  him  sent  forth  to  preach  the  gospel 


OFFICERS  OF  THE   CHURCHES,  73 

diirino'  his  lifetime.  From  their  being  thus  .sewi  the 
name  apostles  is  derived.  They  were  al.so  trained 
by  our  Lord  for  their  work  after  his  departure. 
How  much  he  may  have  ])ersonally  taught  them  con- 
cerning this  we  do  not  know.  John  tells  us  in  the 
latter  part  of  his  Gospel  of  the  many  unrecorded 
deeds  of  Jesus.  There  must"  also  have  been  a  large 
number  of  unrecorded  teachings,  and  the  Lord 
promised  his  disciples  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
bring  to  their  remend)rance  after  his  departure 
whatsoever  things  he  had  taught. 

(b)  On  the  fall  of  Judas,  Matthias  was  appointed 
by  the  Apostles  and  brethren  to  fill  the  vacancy. 
This  appointment  seems  to  have  been  confirmed  by 
the  Lord,  who  was  earnestly  sought  in  prayer  to 
indicate  in  some  way  his  preference  between  the  two 
upon  whom  the  minds  of  the  Apostles  had  turned. 
Nothing  more  is  said  of  Matthias.  He  disappears 
entirely  from  the  history,  and  some  have  questioned 
the  validity  of  his  appointment.  This  is  unneces- 
sary, however;  for  there  are  many  others  of  the 
apostolic  body  of  whom  nothing  is  said,  and  silence 
concerning  their  work  cannot  be  taken  as  argument 
that  they  were  not  apostles.  In  Acts  6:2  it  is  said 
that  *'the  Twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  dis- 
ciples together,"  and  so  the  restoration  of  the  num- 
ber in  Matthias  seems  to  be  recognized.  (Cf.  Acts 
1:26;  2:5.) 

(c)  The  case  of  Paul  raises  some  difficult  and  in- 
teresting questions.  In  the  addresses  of  all  his 
epistles,  except  Philippians,  First  and  Second  Thes- 
salonians  and  Philemon  (where  he  associates  other 
brethren  with  himself),  he  calls  himself  an  apostle. 


74  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

lu  several  passages  he  asserts  against  his  critics  his 
right  to  be  called  an  apostle.  He  is  so  named  along 
with  Barnabas  in  Acts  14 :14 ;  and  appears  to  be  so 
recognized  (Gal.  2:7-9)  by  the  others.  So  far  from 
being  chosen  by  the  other  Apostles,  as  Matthias  was, 
he  repeatedly  declares  that  he  owed  his  call  directly 
to  the  Lord  himself.  Now  on  this  appointment  of 
Paul  three  opinions  may  be  noted:  (i)  Some  have 
suggested  that  the  Lord  in  this  way  showed  his  dis- 
approval of  the  selection  of  Matthias,  and  set  him 
aside  by  calling  Paul  to  make  up  the  Twelve  again. 
On  this  it  is  enough  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  shred 
of  evidence.  It  is  conjecture  pure  and  simple,  (ii) 
More  reasonable  is  the  view  that  we  are  not  called 
on  to  save  the  number  twelve.  If  the  Lord  chose 
in  his  good  pleasure  to  call  a  thirteenth  apostle  and 
add  him  to  the  number  already  appointed,  it  was 
clearly  an  act  of  sovereignty  on  his  part.  (iii.) 
This  appointment  is  taken  by  some  to  be  an  indi- 
cation, along  with  others  now  to  be  mentioned,  that 
our  Lord  established  a  "larger  apostolate"  than  that 
of  the  Twelve,  and  that  Paul  was  simply  the  first, 
or  most  prominent,  of  this  additional  body  of  apos- 
tles.   This  brings  us  to  the  question : 

(d)  Were  there  others  besides  Matthias  and  Paul 
who  are  called  apostles?  At  once  the  passage  in 
Acts  14 :14  comes  to  mind,  where  occurs  the  expres- 
sion :  "'The  apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul,"  and  first 
place  is  gi\^n  to  Barnabas.  This  is  very  distinct, 
and  can  hardly  be  satisfactorily  explained  by  say- 
ing that  Barnabas  is  so  named  simply  because  of 
his  association  with  Paul.  For  in  those  letters 
where  Paul  associates  others  with  himself  in  the 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  <5 

opening  words  he  seems  carefully  to  avoid  the  term 
apostle,  not  even  taking  it  himself,  as  he  does  in- 
variably elsewhere.  Again,  in  Rom.  IG  :7  Paul  sa- 
lutes "Andronieus  and  Junias  *  *  *  ^yi^Q  ji^g 
of  note  among  the  apostles.''  It  is  true  that  this 
may  mean  only  that  these  were  held  as  notable  by 
the  apostles,  but  that  is  a  less  natural  and  probable 
meaning  than  that  they  were  notable  members  of 
the  body  of  apostles.  In  1  Cor.  15  :5-8.  after  having 
specially  mentioned  the  Twelve.  Paul  speaks  of 
Christ's  having  appeared  to  "all  the  apostles."  and 
the  phrase  may  point  to  a  larger  body  than  the 
Twelve.  In  2  Cor.  8:23  he  describes  the  brethren 
who  had  the  collection  in  charge  as  "apostles  of  the 
churches,''  and  in  Phil.  2 :5  he  speaks  of  Epaphro- 
ditus  as  ''your  apostle."  In  these  two  passiiges  the 
word  seems  to  have  not  its  oflScial  but  only  its  ordi- 
nary sense  of  "messenger.''  or  delegate,  and  is  bet- 
ter so  rendered.  Yet  its  use  even  in  this  sense  may 
have  some  bearing  on  the  point  in  hand  as  indicat- 
ing a  more  extended  application  of  the  term. 
Finally,  the  references  in  2  Cor.  11:5.13,  and  Rev. 
2:2,  to  "false  apostles''  show  that  there  were  some 
who  claimed  the  title  without  right,  and  this  would 
have  been  well-nigh  imi)ossible  had  the  term  been 
employed  solely  as  a  designation  of  the  Twelve. 
With  regard  to  the  use  of  the  term  in  the  sub-  apos 
tolic  age  something  will  be  said  further  on.  In  the 
New  Testament  itself  the  word  is  used  in  the  three 
ways  indicated :  the  Twelve,  a  larger  body  including 
Paul  and  Barnabas  with  sjtecial  distinction,  and  the 
^'messengers  of  the  churches."' 

What  were  the  (pialifieations  of  an  apostle? 


76  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

(a)  He  must  have  a  special  call  and  mission.  In 
case  of  the  original  Twelve  and  of  Paul  the  call 
came  from  the  Master;  the  mission  in  all  cases  was 
to  proclaim  and  teach  the  go.spel  and  apparently  to 
found  and  form  the  churches.  In  case  of  Matthias 
the  call  seems  to  have  been  indicated  in  answer  to 
prayer  for  guidance  between  two  selected  by  their 
brethren  as  qualified.  Besides  the  personal  call  of 
I'aul,  it  is  shown  that  the  church  at  Antioch  (Acts 
13:1)  was  in  some  way  directed  to  choose  and  set 
apart  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  missionary  work,  their 
call  and  qualifications  seem  to  have  been  recognized 
as  valid  ((lal.  2:(>-10)  by  the  leaders  at  Jerusalem, 
and  they  are  together  designated  as  apostles  (Acts 
14:14).  Thus  the  divin*>  call  and  the  churchly  or 
fraternal  recognition  seem  both  to  be  requisite;  and 
this  view  is  strengthened  by  the  references  to  the 
'"false  apostles,"  or  those  who  lacked  these  things. 

(b)  Another  qualification  was  that  the  apostle 
must  be  able  to  render  personal  testimony  to  the  fact 
of  the  Lord's  resurrection.  In  case  of  Matthias 
(Acts  1:22)  this  is  distinctly  required.  It  may  be 
reasonably  assumed  for  Barnabas  (Acts  4:33,36), 
Andonicus  and  Junias  (Rom.  16:7),  and  is  earnestly 
claimed  by  Paul  (1  Cor.  9:1;  15:8.0)  as  being  true 
of  himself.  In  the  case  of  Matthias,  again,  this 
seems  to  have  gone  along  with  the  requirement  of 
acquaintance  with  the  Lord  from  the  beginning  of 
his  public  ministry  (Acts  1:21,22)  ;  but  whether  for 
others  cannot  be  said.  Certainly  Paul  had  not 
been  a  disciple  of  Christ  from  that  date,  though  he 
may  have  known  him  (2  Cor.  5:16)  by  sight.  But 
however  this  may  be,  the  main  thing  was  that  an 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  77 

apostle  must  be  able  to  say  that  be  had  seen  and 
recognized  Christ  after  his  resniTection. 

(c)  A  further  qualification  of  the  office  was  in 
having-  ^'tlie  signs  of  an  apostle."  This  seems  to 
mean  the  power  to  work  miracles  as  a  voucher  of 
apostolic  authority.  Along  with  it  went  of  course 
the  spiritual  work  and  fruit  of  a  divinely  author- 
ized and  empowered  messenger.  Paul  claimed  these 
signs  in  1  Cor.  9  :2,  and  2  Cor.  12  :12.  They  are  in- 
volved in  the  original  call  and  empowering  of  the 
Twelve,  and  are  exhibited  in  many  instances  in  the 
Acts.  While  miraculous  and  spiritual  powers  were 
not  confined  to  the  Apostles,  they  were  a  conspieious 
and  necessary  part  of  their  qualification. 

(d)  One  more  qualification,  but  a  difficult  one  to 
define,  is  that  of  the  authority  and  privileges  en- 
joyed by  the  apostles.  This  appears  in  the  promi- 
nence given  to  the  Twelve  by  our  Lord,  in  his  special 
training  of  them  for  their  work  after  his  departure, 
in  their  assumption  and  their  brethren's  recognition 
of  their  leadership  among  the  disciples  after  the 
Ascension,  and  in  many  other  familiar  tokens  found 
in  Scripture.  More  particularly  Paul  in  several  well 
known  instances  claims  this  authority  for  himself, 
and  once  takes  Barnabas  in  with  him  (1  Cor.  9:4-6) 
as  having  right  to  the  consideration  enjoyed  by  other 
apostles. 

The  foregoing  discussion  shows  plainly,  without 
detailed  study,  that  the  office  of  apostle  was  not 
local  but  general.  More  important  is  it  to  consider 
whether  the  office  was  designed  to  be  permanent 
among  the  churches.  On  this  it  is  to  be  noted:  (a) 
That  there  is  no  hint  anywhere  in  the  New  Testa- 


78  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

nieut  that  the  oflfice  was  to  be  passed  on  to  others, 
eitliei'  for  the  perpetuation  of  a  body  of  twelve,  or 
of  the  hirger  number  of  this  rank,  (b)  On  the  con- 
trary, the  fact  that  personal  witness  to  the  resur- 
rection of  our  Lord  was  an  indispensable  qualifica- 
tion made  it  impossible  to  continue  the  office,  as  it 
was  then  understood,  after  the  witnesses  to  that 
event  should  have  died.  Paul  mentions  (1  Cor. 
15:G)  that  some  of  these  valuable  witnesses  had  al- 
ready fallen  asleep,  and  of  course  the  range  of  se- 
lection for  vacancies  would  narrow  to  disappear- 
ance with  the  lapse  of  time.  Nor,  in  fact,  is  there 
any  record  or  trace  of  further  appointments  to  the 
office  after  those  already  mentioned.  And  it  is  fur- 
ther to  be  said  that  no  indication  is  to  be  found  that 
the  functions  of  an  apostle  without  the  name  Avere  to 
be  transferred  to  any  other  set  of  officers  and  per- 
petuated in  the  churches  after  the  apostolic  age.  The 
question  as  to  the  succession  in  bishops  belongs  to 
the  post-apostolic  age. 

We  pass  now  to  consider  other  general  officers : 
the  prophets,  evangelists  and  teachers.  And  first, 
the  prophets.  The  Scriptures  which  allude  to  ^his 
office  are:  Acts  11:27;  13:1;  15:32;  21:10;  1  Cor. 
12:28;  14:29-10;  Eph.  2:20;  3:5;  4:11  (compare 
James  5:10);  Rev.  10:7;  11:10,18;  16  :G;  18:20-24; 
22  :G,9.  Compare  with  these  Rom.  12  :6 ;  1  Cor.  13  :2. 
In  regard  to  the  prophets  of  the  New  Testamei't  dis 
pensation  and  their  office  we  have  very  interc'^ting 
questions  which  are  not  without  their  difficullies.  A 
full  discussion  of  the  matter  is  not  practicable  here, 
but  the  teachings  of  the  foregoing  passages  may  be 
summarized  as  follows:     (a)  The  prophets  were  not 


OFFICERS  OF  THE   CHURCHES.  79 

officers  elected  by  the  churches.  There  does  not  ap- 
pear in  any  of  the  passages  noted,  a  trace  of  election 
to  office.  Rather  were  they  men  especially  qrifiiified 
and  inspired  of  God  for  the  benefit  of  the  churches. 

(b)  They  are  next  in  rank  to  the  Apostles — r.re  so 
mentioned  in  both  of  the  passages  where  lists  are 
given,  and  are  generally  noticed  in  such  a  way  as  to 
indicate  that  they  stood  next  to  those  who  bad  been 
personally  appointed  Apostles  by  the  T-ord.  It  is 
possible  that  all  the  Apostles  were  prophets,  but  cer- 
tainly  not   all   the   prophets   were   called   apostles. 

(c)  Their  qualification  was  that  of  inspiration, 
sometimes  of  foretelling  the  future,  as  in  the  case 
of  Agabus,  who  is  mentioned  in  Acts  11 :28  as  pre- 
dicting the  famine,  and  in  21 :10,11  as  foretelling 
the  trials  of  Paul  at  Jerusalem.  Generally,  how- 
ever, their  function  seems  to  have  been,  by  divine 
inspiration,  to  receive  and  make  known  new  truth, 
or  to  give  to  the  brethren  better  insight  into  truth 
already  known  In  the  fifteeenth  chapter  of  Acts 
Judas  and  Silas  are  mentioned  as  prophets  who  ex- 
horted the  brethren.  Prophecy  was,  therefore,  rather 
a  gift  than  an  office,  and  was  probably  not  confined 
to  any  office,  but  was  given  to  individuals  according 
as  God  chose  and  inspired  them.  There  were  also 
female  prophets,  as  the  daughters  of  Philip  the 
Evangelist,  and  those  mentioned  in  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  First  Corinthians. 

In  regard  to  evangelists,  there  are  only  a  few 
Scriptures.  In  Acts  21 :8  Philip  is  designated  as 
''the  Evangelist."  This  we  easily  suppose  to  be  the 
same  Philip  who  preached  in  Samaria  and  to  the 
Ethiopian  treasurer.     In  the  list  of  officers  given 


80  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

in  Eph,  4:11  evangelists  are  mentioned,  and  in  2 
Tim.  4  :5  the  young  preacher  is  exhorted  to  "do  the 
work  of  an  evangelist.''  The  notices  of  the  oflSce 
are,  therefore,  very  slight,  and  about  all  that  we  can 
say  is  that  the  evangelists  seem  to  have  been  travel- 
ing preachers  authorized  by  the  Apostles  and  the 
churches;  that  they  went  about  preaching  but  with- 
out apostolic  rank,  and  probably  in  most  cases  with- 
out prophetic  inspiration.  Their  relations  to  indi- 
vidual churches  are  unknown,  though  it  is  likely 
that  they  were  supported  in  their  missionary  tours 
by  the  contributions  of  their  brethren  at  home,  at 
least  in  part. 

In  regard  to  the  teachers  there  are  a  few  passages : 
Acts  13:1;  1  Cor.  12:28,20;  Eph.  4:11;  1  Tim.  2:7; 
2  Tim.  1 :11 ;  4  :3 ;  Heb.  5  :12 ;  James  3  :1.  A  study  of 
these  passages  will  reveal  the  probability  that  the 
teacher  was  not  properly  speaking  an  officer,  but  his 
teaching  was  rather  a  function  wliich  might  be 
joined  with  other  offices  and  not  confined  to  a  spe- 
cial office.  Doubtless  many  besides  those  who  were 
elders,  or  evangelists,  or  prophets,  exercised  this 
function.  James  exhorts  that  it  is  not  best  for  too 
many  to  aspire  to  be  teachers.  The  writer  to  the 
Hebrews  suggests  that  considering  the  time  they 
had  been  converted  his  readers  ought  to  be  teachers, 
in  the  first  mention  of  them  it  is  said  that  in  the 
church  at  Antioch  there  were  prophets  and  teachers. 
In  some  cases  it  may  have  been  an  official  designa- 
tion;  but  if  so,  it  is  hard  to  find  the  exact  relation 
to  the  other  offices,  or  whether  it  was  held  by  the 
formal  appointment  of  the  church. 

We  pass  on  now  to  notice  what  may  be  called  the 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  81 

doubtful  offices.  In  1  Cor.  12:28  along-  with  the 
officers  are  mentioned  "helps,  governments."  In 
this  much-discussed  verse  we  have  the  offices  of 
apostles,  teacliers,  prophets;  and  the  gifts,  or 
charisms,  of  healing,  of  working  miracles,  of  tongues. 
These  last  can  hardly  be  considered  as  offices  in  any 
sense — certainly  not  as  distinct  and  separate  ones. 
The  question  is  whether  the  remaining  two  terms, 
"helps,  governments,"  constituted  separate  and  dis- 
tinct offices,  and  if  so,  what  were  they?  It  must  be 
admitted  that  no  entirely  satisfactory  interpreta- 
tion has  been  found  for  this  passage,  but  the  best 
is  that  which  takes  the  expression  "governments," 
as  expressing  the  duties  of  the  elders  in  the  general 
oversight  of  the  church,  and  the  phrase  "helps"  as 
expressing  the  duties  of  the  deacons  in  the  care  of 
the  poor,  the  sick  and  others.  So  that  the  offices  of 
elder  and  deacon,  which  are  not  mentioned  by  name 
in  the  text,  are  at  least  brought  in  by  notice  of  their 
functions.  We  may  notice  here  again  the  "messen- 
gers of  the  churches,"  mentioned  in  2  Cor.  8:23, 
where  the  word  in  the  Greek  is  "apostle,"  but  they 
may  be  regarded  simply  as  those  who  were  sent  by 
the  church  upon  a  special  mission.  They  were  not 
permanent  officers,  but  were  appointed  to  collect 
and  bear  the  gifts  of  the  churches  to  the  poor  saints 
at  Jerusalem.  We  must  also  add  here  the  difficult 
designation  "the  angel  of  the  church,"  occurring  so 
often  in  the  first  three  chapters  of  Revelation — 
"the  jLUgel  of  the  ^Imrch  ^  JEphesus,"  "Smyrna," 
and  so  on.  This  is  also  a  very  difficult  matter,  and 
no  satisfactory'  explanation  has  yet  been  offered. 
Three  interpretations  deserve  attention:   (a)    Some 


82  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

maintain  that  the  bishops  or  elders  of  the  churches 
are  meant,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  no  other 
place  is  found  where  either  bishops  are  called  angels 
or  angels  bishops,  and  so  this  is  not  certainly  the 
proper  interpretation.  Yet  it  has  in  its  favor  the 
fact  that  an  officer  of  the  synagoguie,  who  was 
charged  with  conducting  the  worship,  was  some- 
times called  a  "messenger,"  the  equivalent  of  "angel" 
in  Greek.  But  even  this  is  open  to  some  question, 
(b)  Another  suggestion  is  that  the  designation  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  symbol  or  personification 
of  the  church  itself,  as  a  sort  of  synonym  for  the 
church — the  church  itself  looked  upon  as  an  angel — 
to  the  angel  which  is  the  church.  This  is  rather  a 
vague  suggestion  and  it  does  not  appear  why  angel 
should  have  been  chosen  rather  than  some  other 
term  as  a  synonym  of  church.  (c)  The  other 
interpretation  is  that  which  regards  it  as  an  allusion 
to  the  doctrine  of  guardian  angels,  that  each  church 
is  considered  as  having  a  guardian  angel  who  is  ad- 
dressed on  its  behalf.  Some  plausibility  is  lent  to 
this  view  by  what  our  Lord  says  concerning  the  little 
ones  whose  "angels"  always  behold  the  face  of  the 
Father  in  heaven,  and  by  the  fact  that  when  Peter 
knocked  at  the  door  of  Mary's  house  in  Jerusalem 
after  his  release  from  prison,  some  thought  it  was 
his  "angel"  instead  of  himself  who  was  knocking. 
This,  too,  is  rather  a  strained  interpretation,  but  it 
is  at  least  possible. 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  83 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  V. 

OFFICERS  OF   THE    CHURCHES    (CONTINUED). 

I.  Elders — bishops — pastors. 

1.  The  term  employed. 

(1)  Derivation  and  meaning. 

(a)  Elder. 

(b)  Bishop. 

(c)  Pastor. 

(2)  Same  officer  meant  by  all. 

(a)  Acts  20:17. 

(b)  Titus  1:5-7. 

(c)  1  Peter  5:1,2. 

2.  Nature  of  the  office. 

(1)  Duties. 

(2)  Numbers. 

(3)  Qualifications. 

(4)  Appointment. 

(5)  Tenure. 

(6)  Emolument. 

(7)  Authority. 

II.  The  deacons. 

1.  Origin  and  meaning  of  the  office. 

2.  Were  there  female  deacons? 

3.  Qualifications. 

4.  Duties. 


CHAPTER  V. 

CHURCH  rOLlTY   IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMFXT. 
OFFICERS  OF  THE   CHURCHES ELDERS  AND  DEACOXS. 

CoxTixuixG  oiir  study  of  the  officers  of  the  New 
Testament  churches,  we  come  in  this  chapter  to  those 
that  were  local  and  designed  to  be  permanent.  These 
were  the  elders,  called  also  bishops  and  pastors,  and 
the  deacons.  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these 
groups  we  notice  that  three  separate  terms  are  em- 
ployed. Until  lately  it  has  been  generally  admitted 
among  scholars  that  the  same  officer  is  intended  by 
all  three  words.  8ome  recent  critics,  following 
Harnack,  have  denied  the  identity,  but  not  with  suc- 
cess, as  will  appear  further  on.  We  shall  first  no- 
tice the  derivation  and  meaning  of  the  three  terms, 
and  then  consider  whether  they  were  meant  to  de- 
scribe the  same  or  different  officers. 

First,  as  to  the  term  elder.  There  are  many 
places  in  the  Gospels  and  some  in  the  Acts 
where  this  word  is  applied  to  certain  officials 
among  the  Jews,  and  there  are  a  few  places 
where  it  simply  means  an  old  person.  Somewhat 
doubtful  is  the  reference  in  1  Tim.  5 :1,  where 
Paul  says,  ''Rebuke  not  an  elder,  but  exhort 
him  as  a  father;  the  younger  men  as  brethren.'^ 
Here  the  word  elder  may  be  the  official  term,  or  it 
may  simply  mean  an  older  man,  we  cannot  say  posi- 
tively which,  though  the  probabilities  are  that  it 
refers  to  the  office,  and  that  the  younger  men  are 


OFFICERS  OF  THE   CHURCHES.  85 

mentioned  simply  by  the  natural  law  of  association. 
In  1  Pet.  5  :o  the  reference  is  also  somewhat  doubt- 
ful where  Peter  savs,  ''Likewise,  ye  younger,  be  sub- 
ject unto  the  elder.''  Here,  however,  the  official 
sense  of  the  term  is  less  probable  than  in  the  pas- 
sage just  considered.  Leaving  out  these  two  places 
as  somewhat  doubtful,  the  passages  in  which  the 
elders  clearly  appear  as  church  officers  are  as  fol- 
lows :  Acts  11 :30 ;  14  :23 ;  15  :2,4,G.22,23  ;  16  :1 ;  20  :17 ; 
21:18;  1  Tim.  5:17,19;  Titus  1:5;  Jas.  5:11;  1  Pet. 
5 :1 ;  2  John  1 ;  3  John  1.  This  term  is  by  far  the 
most  frequently  used  of  them  all.  This  probably 
grew  out  of  the  fact  that  it  was  already  an  estab- 
lished word  among  the  Jews,  and  while  it  describes 
the  same  office  as  the  other  two,  it  has  rather  the 
idea  of  age  and  of  the  respect  due  to  age,  as  its 
etymology  and  common  use  would  suggest.  Of 
course,  a  young  man  might  be  officially  an  elder, 
but  there  lay  in  the  term  itself  something  of  a  cau- 
tion like  that  which  Paul  expressed  to  Timothy 
where  he  says  that  the  ''bishop  must  not  be  a  novice, 
lest  being  puffed  up  he  fall  into  the  condemnation 
of  the  devil."  At  any  rate,  the  special  appropriate- 
ness of  the  term  lies  in  the  thought  of  experience 
and  wisdom,  of  maturity  and  strength  of  judgment. 
Another  term  for  this  office  is  "bishop."  There  are 
only  a  few  places  where  this  title  occurs  :  Acts  20 :28 ; 
Phil.  1:1;  1  Tim.  3:1.2;  Titus  1:7.  In  the  first  pas- 
sage, addressing  the  elders  of  the  Ephesian  church, 
Paul  tells  them  to  "take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to 
all  the  flock,  in  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
you  bishops."  This  is  the  first  mention  of  the  office 
under  the  title  of  bishop  in  the  New  Testament.    In 


86  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Phil.  1  :  1  the  Apostle  writes  to  the  church  at 
Philippi,  ''with  the  bishops  and  deacons."  In  1  Tim. 
3 :1,2,  he  speaks  of  the  office  of  the  bishop  which  "if 
a  man  seeketh,  he  desireth  a  good  work,"  and  pro- 
ceeds to  lay  down  the  qualifications  for  the  office. 
The  passage  in  Titus  1 :7  is  similar  in  purport.  We 
should  compare  here  also  the  passage  in  1  Pet.  2 :25 
where  the  Apostle  says,  "For  ye  were  going  astray 
like  sheep ;  but  are  now  returning  unto  the  Shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  your  souls,"  where  our  Lord  is  de- 
scribed in  the  use  of  both  terms,  pastor  and  bishop. 
The  word  bishop  from  the  Greek  iTzcaxa-o^  {epis- 
copos)  means  literally  an  overseer,  and  in  the  mar- 
gin of  the  Revised  Version  is  so  rendered.  It  would 
be  desirable  to  give  it  this  rendering  in  the  trans- 
lations of  the  New  Testament,  because  in  its  progress 
though  history  the  word  bishop  has  acquired  a 
thoroughly  unscriptural  signification,  and  in  modern 
use  connotes  far  more  than  in  strict  New  Testament 
usage  it  denotes.  This  title  of  overseer  as  applied 
to  an  officer  in  the  church  looks  rather  to  the  func- 
tions of  the  office  than  to  the  character  of  the  officer, 
describing  his  care,  his  outlook  upon  those  who  were 
committed  to  his  keeping  as  a  leader,  guide  and 
teacher.  It  carries  with  it  more  of  the  idea  of  au- 
thority and  rule  than  does  that  of  elder. 

The  third  term  of  this  set  of  synonyms  is  that  of 
pastor.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  there  is  only 
one  passage  where  the  word  is  used,  that  is  Eph. 
4 :11,  where,  in  describing  the  gifts  bestowed  on  the 
church  by  the  ascended  Christ,  the  Apostle  says, 
"and  some  pastors  and  teachers."  It  is  not  a  little 
curious  that  the  word  which  we  now  most  commonly 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  87 

V 

use  to  describe  the  leader  in  the  church  is  the  one 
which  the  New  Testament  least  used ;  but  this  prob- 
ably grew  out  of  the  unscriptural  associations  which 
have  been  connected  with  the  terms  elder  and  bishop. 
But  while  this  is  the  only  passage  where  direct  use 
is  made  of  the  terra,  there  are  others  which  justify 
the  application  of  this  word  to  the  office  of  elder 
and  bishop.  Let  us  recall  the  beautiful  passage  in 
John  10:11,  where  our  Lord  calls  himself  ''the  good 
Shepherd,"  and  Heb.  13 :20,  where  he  is  spoken  of 
as  ''that  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep,"  and  1  Peter 
2 :25,  where  he  is  described  as  the  "Shepherd  and 
Bishop  of  your  souls."  Concerning  our  Lord,  this 
indicates  the  care,  the  loving,  affectionate  oversight 
which  the  great  Shepherd  has  over  his  flock.  It  was 
thus  the  familiar  word  for  spiritual  care.  Now  in 
John  21 :16  our  Lord  says  in  his  threefold  question 
and  charge  to  Peter,  "Feed  my  sheep,"  that  is,  Be  a 
shepherd  to  my  sheep — to  my  lambs.  In  Acts  20 :28 
Paul  enjoins  this  solemn  duty  upon  the  Ephesian 
elders,  "Feed  (or  tend)  the  church  of  God;"  and 
Peter  also  in  his  first  Epistle,  fifth  chapter,  verses 
1-4,  charges  the  elders  to  "tend  the  flock  of  God 
which  is  among  you,  exercising  the  oversight,  not 
of  restraint,  but  willingly."  Thus  the  term  pastor, 
"shepherd,"  involves  the  personal  tendance  and  spir- 
itual concern  which  the  bishop-elder  should  exer- 
cise over  his  flock. 

From  a  comparative  study  of  some  of  these  pas- 
sages it  is  evident  that  the  same  officer  is  described  in 
the  three  terms.  In  Acts  20 :17  we  are  told  that  Paul 
sent  for  the  ''elders"  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  then 
in  the  28th  verse,  as  just  noticed,  he  bids  them  "take 


88  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

heed  to  the  flock,"  as  pastors,  in  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  made  them  "bishops,''  or  overseers.  In 
Titus  1 :5-7  Paul  first  speaks  of  Titus'  duty  to  ap- 
poin  ''elders''  in  every  city,  and  then  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  '"bishop"  must  be  blameless  as  God's  stew- 
ard, describing-  under  another  name  the  same  office 
and  laying  down  qualifications  for  it.  And  again, 
in  1  Peter  5:1,2  that  Apostle  exhorts  the  "elders''  to 
"take  heed  to  the  flock''  as  pastors,  and  then  goes 
on  to  say  "exercising  the  oversight,"  that  is,  acting 
the  "bishop,"  or  overseer.  It  is  fair  to  add  that  some 
authorities  omit  from  the  text  the  expression  "ex- 
ercising the  oversight,"  but  it  is  very  probably  genu- 
ine. Thus  it  appears  that  in  one  of  these  passages 
bishop  and  elder  meant  the  same,  and  in  the  other 
two  the  three  terms  are  so  blended  in  the  use  of 
language  as  to  make  it  practically  certain  that  both 
Paul  and  Peter  understood  one  office  by  tliese  three 
terms.  Bishop  Lightfoot  (Commentary  on  Philip- 
pians,  page  05)  says:  "It  is  a  fact  now  generally 
recognized  by  theologians  of  all  shades  of  opinion 
that  in  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  the  same 
officer  in  the  church  is  called  indiff'erently  bishop, 
elder  or  presbyter."  More  recently  some  scholars 
have  questioned  this  conclusion,  but  not  success- 
fully. 

The  duties  of  the  office  were  oversight,  the  general 
direction  of  affairs,  especially  spiritual,  of  the 
church.  This  is  involved  in  all  three  of  the  terms 
emploj^ed,  and  in  much  else;  such  as  the  directions 
given,  the  qualifications  required  and  work  enjoined. 
Another  function  Avas  teaching,  preaching,  edifying 
the  church.     This  especially  appears  in  the  passage 


OFFICERS  OF   THE   CHT'HCHES.  89 

in  Ephesians  where  it  is  said,  "some  pastors  and 
teachers  for  the  edifying  of  the  church,"  and  in  1 
Tim.  3 :2  where  among  the  qualifications  of  the 
bishoj)  it  is  said  that  he  must  be  ''apt  to  teach,"  and 
in  1  Tim.  5:17  where  the  ''elders  that  rule  well"  are 
mentioned,  and  then  thej  are  described  as  those  who 
""labor  in  word  and  doctrine." 

This  last  passage  requires  a  more  special  consid- 
eration inasmuch  as  it  has  been  made  the  founda- 
tion of  a  distinction  between  "teaching"  and  "rul- 
ing" elders.  Let  us  quote  the  passage  in  full:  "Let 
the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of 
double  honor,  especialh^  those  who  labor  in  the 
word  and  in  teaching."  Now  it  may  possibly  be 
true  that  some  of  the  elders  were  charged  only 
with  the  oversight  and  were  not  specially  preachers, 
but  this  seems  quite  unlikely  in  view  of  many  other 
passages.  Rather  the  meaning  is  that  while  the 
general  work  of  oversight  belonged  to  the  elders, 
there  were  some  who  especially  distinguished  them- 
selves in  that  part  of  the  work  which  included  teach- 
ing; that  is,  all  were  both  teachers  and  rulers,  but 
some  gave  especial  attention  to  teaching.  It  is  said 
that  they  "labored"  in  the  word  and  the  teaching. 
Now  this  word  "labored"  in  the  original  expresses 
earnest,  hard,  toilsome  labor,  and  the  idea  seems  to 
be  that  they  made  teaching  especially  laborious 
work. 

It  appears  to  be  well-nigh  certain  that  in  the  apos- 
tolic churches  generally  there  was  a  plurality  of 
elders.  They  are  commonly  mentioned  in  the  plural. 
If  there  be  any  exception  to  this  it  would  be  the 
case  of  Archippus  mentioned  by  Paul  in  Philemon, 


90  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

verses  1  and  2,  and  in  Col.  4 :17.  In  the  first  in- 
stance Archippus  appears  as  the  leader  of  the  church 
in  the  house  of  Philemon,  and  in  Colossians,  writ- 
ing to  the  church,  Paul  says:  "And  say  to  Archip- 
pus, Take  heed  to  the  ministry  which  thou  hast  re- 
ceived in  the  Lord,  that  thou  fulfill  it,"  as  if  he  were 
the  special  one  in  charge  of  the  whole  church.  The 
inference,  however,  is  uncertain.  There  may  have 
been  other  elders  in  the  church  besides  Archippus, 
though  no  others  are  mentioned.  We  cannot  say 
positively,  therefore,  that  there  was  in  all  the 
churches  a  plurality  of  elders,  but  it  is  more  than 
likely  that  this  was  the  fact. 

The  qualifications  for  the  office  were  exceedingly 
important.  The}'  are  especially  insisted  upon  in  the 
directions  which  Paul  gives  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
in  regard  to  the  office  of  elder  and  bishop.  Their 
moral  qualifications  were  to  be  of  the  highest  order. 
They  must  be  blameless,  men  above  reproach,  free 
from  grievous  faults,  and  besides  this  they  must  be 
capable  men  who  knew  how  to  lead,  who  could 
manage  things,  men  who  could  teach  others  the 
truth  of  God  and  be  in  all  things  an  example  to 
those  who  were  under  their  spiritual  oversight. 

Appointment  to  the  office  seems  to  hav^e  been  by 
election  of  the  church.  In  the  first  instance  it  may 
have  been  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Apostles,  as  in 
the  case  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  already  discussed 
(Acts  14:23).  Likewise  Titus  (Titus  1:5)  was  di- 
rected to  appoint  elders  in  every  city,  though  this 
passage  more  probably  described  the  solemn  investi- 
ture, or  setting  apart  to  the  office,  than  the  original 
election  to  it.    In  regard  to  what  we  now  call  ordi- 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  91 

nation,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  light  in  the 
Scripture  is  meagre.  The  Apostles  laid  their  hands 
upon  the  seven  mentioned  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Acts,  some  of  whom  preached  afterwards ;  and  when 
the  church  at  Antioch  separated  Paul  and  Barnabas 
for  the  special  work  of  evangelizing  as  missionaries, 
it  was  done  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Again,  Tim- 
othy is  exhorted  to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man."  But  some  interpreters  take  this  to  apply 
not  to  the  induction  of  elders  into  office,  but  rather 
to  the  reception  of  members  into  the  church.  In  2 
Tim.  1:6  Paul  speaks  of  the  gift  of  God  which  had 
been  imparted  to  Timothy  through  the  laying  on  of 
his  hands,  but  whether  that  referred  to  his  induc- 
tion into  office,  or  to  the  impartation  of  special 
miraculous  gifts  is  a  question  we  cannot  settle. 
The  most  that  we  can  infer  from  this  instance  is 
that  there  was  some  solemn  ceremony  of  induction 
into  office;  and  from  a  comparison  of  these  various 
passages  it  seems  to  have  been  by  the  laying  on  of 
hands  with  prayer  by  the  elders  or  the  Apostles. 
In  1  Tim.  4:14  the  gift  is  referred  to  not  as  coming 
from  the  Apostle  Paul  alone,  but  as  coming  to 
Timothy  "through  prophecy  with  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  or  eldership. 

Another  important  matter  regarding  the  office  of 
elder  is  as  to  the  tenure  of  the  office,  and  of  this 
there  is  no  intimation  in  the  Scripture.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  direct  statement  we  would  naturally  infer 
that  it  was  for  life,  or  good  pleasure,  oi  "during 
good  behavior."  There  is  no  clear  intimation  of  a 
"call"  from  one  church  to  another,  unless  the  case 
of  Apollos  (Acts  18:27;  1  Cor.  16:12)  be  an  excep- 


92  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

tion.  Bnt  on  the  face  of  it  such  a  procedure  is  not 
improbable.  In  1  Tim.  5  :19  there  is  a  significant  al- 
lusion to  dealing  with  unfit  elders,  urging  care  in 
the  matter. 

As  to  the  emolument  of  the  office,  we  are  sure 
from  a  number  of  passages  that  the  elders  received 
pay  for  their  services.  In  1  Cor.  9  :1-18,  the  Apos- 
tle discusses  the  matter  at  considerable  length  as  a 
right  of  the  apostolic  office  and,  by  analogy,  of  the 
office  of  elder,  too,  and  distinctly  asserts,  "Even 
so  did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they  which  proclaim 
the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel."  Again,  in 
Gal.  G  :6,  he  says :  "Let  him  that  is  taught  in  the 
word  communicate  unto  him  that  teacheth  in  all 
good  things,"  meaning  that  those  who  enjoy  the 
services  of  a  pastor  must  share  with  him  the  good 
things  of  this  life,  and  in  what  follows  it  is  inti- 
mated that  this  remuneration  should  be  generous 
and  cordial.  In  the  famous  passage  about  the  rul- 
ing elders  in  1  Tim.  5:17,18:  "Let  the  elders  that 
rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,"  it  is 
not  at  all  unlikely  that  the  Apostle  meant  double 
pay — remuneration;  for  he  goes  on  immediately  to 
say,  "For  the  Scripture  saith,  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle 
the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn,"  using  the 
same  quotation  that  he  did  in  First  Corinthians 
where  the  subject  of  ministerial  support  was  directly 
in  hand,  and  adds  our  Lord's  words  to  the  Twelve 
when  he  sent  them  forth  to  preach:  "The  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire."  Further,  the  caution  in  1  Pet. 
5 :2  Avhere  the  Apostle  urges  the  elders  that  they 
should  not  take  oversight  "for  filthy  lucre  but  of  a 
ready  mind,"  indicates  that  there  was  sufficient  pe- 


OFFICERS  OF  THE   CHURCHES.  93 

cuniary  reward  in  the  office  to  attract  the  cupidity 
of  the  selfish  and  the  sordid.  It  seems,  therefore, 
very  plain  that  the  elders  were  rewarded,  and  some 
of  them  even  entirely  supported  by  the  brethren. 
It  is  possible  that  some  like  Paul  worked  for  their 
own  living  while  they  preached  to  others.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  others  received  only  partial  remuneration 
as  they  gave  only  a  part  of  their  time;  but  it  seems  a 
reasonable  inference,  if  not  a  direct  teaching,  that 
those  Avho  gave  their  wliole  time  to  the  service  of 
the  ministry  were  supported  by  the  voluntary  gifts 
and  offerings  of  those  over  whom  the}^  had  the  over- 
sight. Whether  this  support  was  given  in  the  way 
of  a  stipulated  sum  may  be  doubtful,  but  the  pas- 
sages about  the  laborer  being  worthy  of  his  hire,  and 
the  elders  that  rule  well  being  counted  worthy  of 
double  pay,  suggest  that  a  fixed  salary  was  not  un- 
known. As  the  illustration  used  by  Paul  is  drawn 
from  the  support  of  the  priests  in  the  Old  Testament 
we  infer  that  the  support  was  not  to  be  scanty;  for 
we  know  that  the  Old  Testament  priests  and  Levites 
were  amply  provided  for  by  the  regulations  of  the 
Mosaic  law. 

As  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  authority 
vested  in  the  elders  we  cannot  speak  with  definite- 
ness.  The  people  are  exhorted  to  respect  their  au- 
thority. In  1  Thess.  5:12,13,  Paul  says:  "We  be- 
seech you,  brethren,  to  know  them  that  labor  among 
you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord,  and  admonish 
you;  and  to  esteem  them  exceeding  highly  in  love 
for  their  work's  sake ;' '  and  in  Heb.  13  :17  a  stronger 
note  is  heard,  "Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you,  and  submit  to  them,  for  they  watch  in  behalf 


■94  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

t)f  your  souls,  as  thev  that  shall  give  account ;  that 
they  may  do  this  with  joy,  and  not  with  grief." 
Here  the  responsibility  of  the  office  is  urged  as  a 
reason  why  the  people  should  be  easily  led,  not  con- 
tentious, but  reasonably  submissive  to  the  guidance 
of  their  teachers.  On  the  other  hand  the  elders  are 
Bxhorted  to  exercise  their  authority  with  great  mod- 
deration.  Inasmuch  as  their  office  was  one  of  elec- 
tion by  the  church  they  were  officers  over  it  by  con- 
sent, and  hence  their  rule  could  not  be  independent 
nor  rigid.  Yet,  the  very  name  of  elder  among  the 
Jews  and  that  of  episcopos  or  overseer  among  the 
Greeks  carried  the  notion  of  some  degree  of  author- 
ity. It  was  not,  however,  despotic,  which  would 
he  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  but  a  mild 
rule  or  leadership,  and  hence  the  high  character 
and  superior  wisdom  of  the  elders  were  to  be  ac- 
septed  by  the  church  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  confi- 
dence, not  in  fear  or  unseemly  submission.  The 
authority  was  executive  and  moral  rather  than  arbi- 
trary or  severe. 

Lastly,  we  take  up  the  second  group  of  local  and 
permanent  officers,that  is,  the  deacons.  Very  little, 
indeed,  do  we  find  bearing  upon  this  office  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  word  otd/.o-^o'?  (diaconos)  sim- 
ply means  a  servant,  and  in  that  sense  it  is  often 
found.  From  it  also  is  derived  the  verb  to  serve. 
But  there  are  two  passages,  viz.,  Phil.  1 :1  and  1 
Tim.  3:8-13,  where  the  word  is  certainly  used  in 
the  official  sense.  The  Apostle  writes  to  the  Philip- 
pian  church,  ''with  the  bishops  and  deacons,"  and 
in  the  passage  in  Timothy,  after  giving  instructions 
as  to  the  character  and  qualifications  of  the  bishops, 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CHURCHES.  95 

he  proceeds  immediately  to  add  those  which  are 
necessary  for  the  office  of  deacon.  So  that  while 
the  word  in  its  general  signification  means  a  serv- 
ant, it  is  clear  that  it  came  to  be  used  of  a  church 
officer,  and  this  very  probably  originated  in  the 
event  mentioned  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts,  where 
the  seven  were  set  apart  to  attend  to  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  common  fund  for  the  benefit  of  those  who 
needed  it.  Perhaps  it  would  be  going  too  far  to  say 
that  these  seven  were  actually  deacons,  in  the  later 
sense,  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  Two  of  them, 
Philip  and  Stephen,  also  preached.  But  thus  early 
in  the  history  of  the  church  it  was  felt  that  serv- 
ants, or  officerSj  to  look  after  the  business  afifairs, 
were  needed,  so  that  the  spiritual  teachers  and 
guides  might  give  more  of  their  time  and  attention 
to  the  ministry  of  the  word  and  the  devotions  of  the 
church. 

Two  places  (Rom.  16:1  and  1  Tim.  3:11)  are  held 
by  many  to  give  a  fair  inference  as  to  the  existence 
of  female  deacons.  In  the  first  of  these  passages 
the  good  Phoebe  who  had  some  business  on  hand 
for  the  Lord  and  had  been  the  "succorer  of  many," 
is  described  as  the  servant,  or  deacon,  of  the  church 
at  Cenchreae.  It  is  not  positively  certain  here 
whether  the  word  means  simply  servant,  or  has  its 
official  sense.  It  might  easily  be  the  latter.  In  the 
other  passage,  where  the  qualifications  of  the  office 
of  deacon  are  being  laid  down  the  Apostle  inserts, 
''Likewise  must  their  wives"  have  such  and  such 
qualifications,  but  it  might  as  well  mean  the  women 
who  were  deacons  as  the  wives  of  deacons. 

Good  qualifications  for  the  office  of  deacon  are 


96  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

firmly  insisted  upon  in  Paul's  instructions  to  Tim- 
othy; and  in  the  selection  of  the  seven  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Acts  the  Apostles  said,  '^Choose  you  seven 
men  of  honest  report."  It  appears  from  this  pas- 
sage also  that  appointment  to  the  office  was  by  the 
election  of  the  church  and  perhaps  with  a  ceremony 
of  setting  apart  to  it  by  the  Apostles  or  elders. 
Nothing  whatever  is  said  as  to  the  tenure  of  the 
office,  the  number  of  deacons,  or  whether  they  re- 
ceived any  reward  for  their  service.  The  fact  that 
seven  were  appointed  to  look  after  the  distribution 
in  Jerusalem  affords  no  certain  inference  for  the 
appointment  or  continuance  of  that  number  in  the 
churches. 

The  duties  of  the  deacons,  as  we  infer  from  the 
appointment  of  the  seven  in  Jerusalem,  and  some 
other  indications,  were  primarily  the  care  of  the 
finances,  looking  after  the  business  affairs  of  the 
church,  attending  to  the  poor,  and  probably  the 
care  of  any  other  matters  of  administration  which 
should  be  devolved  upon  them  by  the  church.  The 
name  deacon,  meaning  servant,  indicates  that  the 
duties  of  the  office  might  be  interpreted  with  some 
breadth.  And  the  fact,  as  reported  by  Justin  Mar- 
tyr early  in  the  second  century,  that  the  deacons 
commonly  ministered  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  possi- 
bly points  to  an  earlier  origin  of  that  well-accepted 
and  sacred  duty  of  the  office. 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  97 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  VI. 

LIGHT  FROM   OUTSIDE  ON  NEW   TESTAMENT  POLITY. 

I.  The  Old  Testament. 

1.  The  congregation. 

(1)  Translated   by   both   synagogue  and   ec- 

clesia. 

(2)  Took  action  in  both  civil  and  religious 

affairs. 

2.  The  elders. 

(1)  Government  by  elders  common. 

(2)  They  early  appear  in  the  Old  Testament. 

II.  The  synagogue. 

1.  The  facts. 

(1)  Uncertain  origin. 

(2)  Meaning  of  the  word. 

(3)  Government  by  elders  and  others. 

2.  Inferences. 

(1)  Elements  involved. 

(2)  Extent  of  influence  on  polity. 

III.  Gentile  institutions. 

1.  Gentile  element  in  early  Christianity. 
2  Societies  and  guilds  very  common. 

3.  Probably  not  much  influence  on  church. 

IV.  Early  Christian  literature. 

1.  Preliminary  considerations. 

(1)  Difficulties  of  the  study. 

(2)  Caution  against  prepossession. 

(3)  Necessary  distinction. 

2.  Teachings  of  the  literature. 

(1)  As  to  the  churches. 

(2)  The  officers. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CHURCH  POLITY  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
LIGHT  FROM   OUTSIDE   SOURCES. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  regarding  the  chnrch  of. 
the  New  Testament  solely  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  is,  we  have  tried 
to  find  what  the  word  of  God  itself  teaches  as  to  the 
organization  and  government  of  the  apostolic 
churches;  but  the  question  naturally  arises,  Are 
there  not  other  sources  besides  the  New  Testament 
from  which  we  may  get  some  information  as  to  the 
constitution  and  customs  of  the  earliest  Christian 
churches?  The  industry  of  scholars  has  not  left 
this  field  untilled,  and  results  have  been  gathered 
which  give  us  some  information  in  regard  to  the 
apostolic  polity.  There  are  at  least  four  sources 
of  information  and  inference  outside  of  the  New 
Testament.  These  are  the  Old  Testament,  the  syna- 
gogue as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  the 
customs  and  institutions  among  the  Gentiles  at  the 
period  of  the  formation  of  the  Christian  churches, 
and  the  statements  of  the  earliest  post-apostolic 
Christian  literature. 

Before  entering  into  the  discussion  of  what  light 
we  may  get  from  these  sources  it  is  proper  to  say 
that  information  thus  obtained  is  not  regulative, 
but  simply  illustrative,  that  is,  whatever  we  may 
learn  has  not  the  force  of  binding  authority,  but 


LIGHT  FUOil  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  99 

may  only  show  us  what  the  Apostles  actually  did 
establish;  or  may  at  least  confirm  what  we  have 
learned  from  the  New  Testament;  or  may  throw 
some  light  upon  its  dark  places.  The  synagogue, 
for  example,  is  in  itself  no  authority  for  our  prac- 
tice; yet  if  we  find  certain  customs  existing  in  the 
synagogue  it  may  afford  us  a  reasonable  inference 
that  something  like  them  may  have  been  established 
in  the  Jewish-Christian  churches.  Again,  if  the 
earliest  Christian  writers  mention  certain  things, 
we  shall  have  to  judge  whether  these  existed  in  the 
apostolic  churches  or  grew  up  soon  after  the  apos- 
tolic era  was  closed.  The  mere  fact  of  finding  an 
institution  described  even  in  the  earliest  Fathers 
does  not  prove  its  existence  in  the  New  Testament 
churches  themselves,  though  it  may  yield  an  in- 
ference in  that  direction. 

Let  us  first  notice  what  light  we  may  receive  from 
the  Old  Testament.  In  the  interest  of  infant  bap- 
tism and  of  government  by  elders  the  Presbyterians 
have  exaggerated  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  matter  of  church  order  under  the  new 
dispensation;  but  repelled  by  this  use  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  back  up  theories  not  supported  by  the 
New,  Baptists  and  others  are  possibly  apt  to  under- 
rate the  value  of  Old  Testament  teaching  upon 
many  matters  of  Christian  life.  Without  attempt- 
ing here  to  define  the  exact  limits  of  the  question 
we  may  say  in  general  that  the  polity  of  the  churches 
under  the  New  Testament  dispensation  is  so  utterly 
different  in  conception  and  purpose  from  the  order 
of  things  which  prevailed  under  the  Old  Testament- 
economy  that  inferences   must   be   made   with  t^x- 


100  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ceeding  caution,  Christianity  is  not  a  reproduction 
of  Judaism ;  the  local  church  of  the  New  Testament 
was  not  to  be  a  continuation  in  miniature  of  the 
Old  Testament  theocracy ;  nor  was  any  aggregation 
or  organic  union  of  the  local  churches  to  renew  and 
perpetuate  on  a  larger  scale  the  Israelitish  com- 
monwealth. No  warrant  for  such  views  as  these 
can  be  found  in  any  of  the  passages  from  the  New 
Testament  which  we  have  studied.  Much  positive 
teaching  to  the  contrary  could  be  adduced;  yet,  the 
influence  of  the  institutions  of  the  old  dispensation 
upon  those  of  the  new  is  not  to  be  wholly  denied. 
Two  things  especially  under  the  Old  Testan^ienit 
economy  seem  to  have  had  some  formative  influence 
upon  the  organization  of  the  Christian  churches. 
These  were  the  congregation  and  the  elders. 

Frequently  in  the  Old  Testament  ''congregation"^ 
is  mentioned.  There  are  various  phrases,  such  as 
''the  congregation"  simply,  "the  holy  congregation," 
"the  congregation  of  the  people,"  "the  congregation 
of  the  Lord,"  "the  congregation  of  Israel,"  and 
others.  .  There  are  two  Hebrew  words  for  congre- 
gation, qalial  and  edhah.  These  are  rendered  in 
the  Septuagint  by  the  two  Greek  words  (Tw^ayojyrj 
(synagoge)  and  t/./.krjaia  (ecclesia),  but  in  both 
cases  the  terms  seem  to  be  interchangeable,  that  is, 
one  is  sometimes  translated  by  one  word  and  some- 
times by  the  other — either  Greek  word  is  used  for 
either  of  the  Hebrew  words  indifferently.  The  con- 
gregation took  action  both  in  civil  and  religious 
matters.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  as  a  rule  such 
action  was  performed  by  the  elders  as  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  and  not  by  the  people  collec- 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOFRCES.  101 

tively,  though  this  iiiav  have  been  sometimes  the 
case.  The  point  is  that  here  in  the  Okl  Testament 
there  was  in  the  politico-religious  affairs  of  the 
people  action  by  the  congregation,  and  that  the 
Greek  translation  of  the  names  for  this  congrega- 
tion have  come  down  to  us  in  the  two  words  syna- 
gogue and  ecclesia.  This  does  not  prove  much  re- 
garding the  New  Testament  congregation,  or 
ecclesia,  but  it  is  at  least  suggestive  of  the  congre- 
gational authority  and  activity  which  we  find  in 
the  New  Testament  churches,  and  also  of  the  col- 
lective conception  of  the  whole  people  of  God  as  a 
body.  Action  by  the  congregation  was  in  harmony 
with  well  known  Old  Testament  precedent. 

In  regard  to  the  government  by  elders  as  exhi- 
bited in  the  Old  Testament  several  matters  deserve 
attention.  In  general  the  government  by  elders  is 
no  strange  thing  in  the  world's  history.  It  is 
natural  that  mattei's  concerning  the  weal  of  the 
people,  or  tribe,  or  family,  should  be  regulated  by 
the  older  men  among  them;  so  we  find  in  many  of 
the  little  Greek  republics  the  gerousia,  or  body  of 
elderly  men.  Rome  had  her  senate,  originally  com- 
posed of  the  senes,  or  old  men.  Our  Saxon  fore- 
fathers had  as  officers  in  their  towns  or  tribes, 
aeldermen,  whence  our  modern  aldermen;  so  in  the 
Old  Testament  we  find  abundant  notice  of  the  elders 
as  rulers  and  judges  among  the  people.  They  ai*e 
mentioned  (Ex,  3:16)  as  early  as  the  days  of  the 
Egyptian  bondage.  The  seventy  elders  appointed 
at  God-s  command  (Num.  11 :11  f.)  even  while  Israel 
was  yet  in  the  wilderness  were  to  assist  Moses  in 
hearing  cases.     All  through  the  subsequent  history 


102  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

there  is  frequent  mention  of  the  elders  of  the  peo- 
ple, of  the  congregation,  of  the  cities,  and  so  on. 
Civil  and  religious  functions  were  not  so  sharply 
separated  under  the  Israelitish  theocracy  as  among 
us,  and  so  in  the  case  of  the  elders  these  two  classes 
of  duties  were  no  doubt  combined.     Their  functions 
were  largely  civil  and  especially  judicial.     It  was 
in  this  capacity  that  we  find  them  so  often  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospels  and  Acts.     But  in  the  elders 
of  the  synagogue  we  probably  have  a  class  of  offi- 
cers whose  duties  were  chiefly  religious,  and  this 
will  be  noticed  in  discussing  the  synagogue.     Now 
it  was  perfectly  natural  that  when  churches  came 
to  be  formed  among  Jews  converted  to  Christianity 
the    officers    appointed    to    leadership    and    over- 
sight  in   the   churches   should   have   the    name   of 
elders.    But  there  is  no  proof  that  the  authority  of 
the  church  elders^  was  equal  to  that  of  the  Jewish 
elders,  or  that  the  judicial  functions  of  the  latter 
were  in  anj^  sense  exercised  by  the  elders  of  the 
New    Testament    churches.     The    name    and    some 
general  notion  of  authority  seems  to  be  all  that  can 
be  safely  inferred  from  the  Old  Testament  eldership 
in  regard  to  the  officers  of  the  apostolic  churches. 
In  regard  to  the  synagogue,  scholars  have  not  yet 
determined  the  exact  time  of  the  origin  of  that  in- 
stitution among  the  Jews.     After  the  return  from 
the  Babylonish  captivity  it  is  said  that  in  Judsea 
numbers   of   synagogues  were  established.     In   the 
time  of  the  Maccabees  the  land  was  dotted  with 
these   institutions.     There   is   frequent   mention   of 
them  in  the  New  Testament,  and  they  have  been  ever 
since    those    days    a    firmlv    established    and    well 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  103 

known  feature  of  Judaism  in  all  the  world.  The 
word  synagogue,  as  before  mentioned,  is  of  Greek 
origin  and  means  literally  a  coming  together,  or 
gathering.  As  we  have  seen,  it  was  sometimes  used 
by  the  Septuagint  to  translate  certain  Hebrew 
words  for  congregation.  But  in  the  Greek  and 
Roman  periods  of  the  Jewish  history  the  word 
synagogue  ceased  to  be  used  for  the  general  congre- 
gation and  came  to  be  restricted  to  the  special  in- 
stitution which  it  has  ever  since  designated.  For 
this  the  Jews  had  made  a  new  Hebrew  word, 
k'nescth,  from  a  verb  meaning  to  assemble,  so  as  to 
distinguish  the  new  institution  from  the  oldtime 
congregation  of  the  people.  By  a  perfectly  natural 
process  the  word  which  originally  meant  an  as- 
sembly came  to  mean  the  place  of  worship,  and  so 
we  find  that  "synagogue,"  like  our  ''church,"  has 
this  two-fold  sense.  In  our  Lord's  time  the  syna- 
gogue was  a  place  of  worship,  with  constant  refer- 
ence to  the  assembled,  or  organized,  body  of  wor- 
shipers. With  the  worship  we  are  not  at  present 
concerned,  but  we  may  notice  that  it  consisted  of 
the  reading  of  Scripture,  prayer,  praise,  and  some- 
times of  a  word  of  exhortation,  or  a  speech,  by  some 
one  who  volunteered  or  was  invited  to  speak.  The 
government  of  the  synagogue  is  our  present  con- 
cern. There  were  elders  who  seem  to  have  been 
mainly  charged  with  the  administration  of  affairs 
and  with  discipline.  Rulers  of  the  synagogue  are 
also  mentioned.  But  whether  this  was  simply  an- 
other name  for  the  elders,  or  meant  the  president  of 
the  council  of  elders,  or  was  another  officer  alto- 
gether, is  not  certainly  known.     There  were  also 


104  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

other  olficers  subordinate  to  these,  whose  duties  are 
not  clearly  made  out.  Just  how  much  authority 
was  lodged  with  the  elders  and  rulers,  and  how 
much  was  exercised  by  the  congregational  body,  we 
cannot  say,  but  it  is  certainly  not  proved  that  the 
sole  authority  was  vested  in  the  eldership. 

When  we  come  to  sum  up  the  points  about  the 
synagogue  we  find  four  that  yield  some  inference  as 
to  the  formation  of  the  Christian  churches,  viz., 
(a)  The  place  of  worship  and  the  worshiping  con- 
gregation with  some  kind  of  organization;  (b) 
Four  elements  of  worship,  praise,  prayer,  Scrip- 
ture reading  and  speaking;  (c)  Discipline  con- 
ducted, members  cast  out;  (Cf.  John,  9th  chapter) 
and  probably  also  taken  in,  though  how  we  cannot 
say;  (d)  Administration  with  some  degree  of 
authority  in  the  hands  of  a  set  of  elders,  and  along 
with  these  such  subordinate  oflBcers  as  may  have 
been  needed. 

Now  not  only  in  Judaea  but  in  almost  all  places 
among  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  these  institutions 
existed  when  the  Apostles  and  others  went  forth  to 
preach  the  gospel  and  to  found  churches.  The  in- 
ference is  strong  that  to  a  considerable  extent  the 
organization  of  the  church  was  influenced  by  that 
of  the  synagogue;  but  still  we  cannot  see  that  the 
synagogue  was  in  any  sense  an  authoritative  model 
for  the  church,  then  or  now,  because  the  synagogue 
itself  was  not  strictly  speaking  of  divine  appoint- 
ment ;  nor  can  we  affirm  with  any  certainty  that  the 
Apostles  conformed  the  church  exactly  to  the  model 
of  the  synagogue.  Even  if  the  elders  of  the  syna- 
gogues were  invested  with  very  large  authority  it 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  105 

would  not  therefore  follow  that  the  elders  of  the 
i'hiirches  would  be  charged  with  the  same,  or  a 
similar  degree  of  power. 

Another  line  of  inquiry  takes  in  the  influence  of 
the  contemporary  Gentile  institutions  upon  the 
formation  of  the  earliest  Christian  churches. 
Gathered  into  these  Christian  churches  were  many 
Gentiles  of  various  races.  We  know  of  Philip's 
preaching  at  Samaria  and  of  his  baptizing  the  treas- 
urer of  the  Ethiopian  queen.  We  read  of  Peter's 
visit  to  the  centurion  Cornelius,  and  we  have  a  com- 
paratively full  account  of  the  great  work  of  Paul 
among  the  Gentiles.  By  tradition  we  have  some 
glimpses  of  the  work  of  John  at  Ephesus.  Concern- 
ing the  work  of  other  apostles  and  workers  we  have 
little  or  no  information  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles, 
and  no  trustworthy  record  or  tradition  outside  of 
Scripture ;  but  we  may  be  sure  that  while  Paul  and 
his  co-laborers  worked,  the  rest  of  the  apostolic  band 
were  not  idle.  In  the  second  century'  there  were  a 
great  many  Christians,  as  we  know  from  Pliny's 
'etter  to  Trajan,  and  from  other  sources.  In  the 
earliest  centuries  Christianity  became  Gentile  rather 
than  Jewish,  and  so  remains  to  this  day.  Without 
doubt,  therefore,  there  was  Gentile  influence,  as 
well  as  Jewish,  upon  apostolic  Christianity.  Our 
question  here  is  whether  that  influence  was  felt  in 
the  matter  of  church  organization,  and  if  so  to 
what  extent. 

As  to  the  character  of  the  Gentile  elements  in 
early  Christianity,  we  have  some  traces  in  the  New 
Testament  itself.  In  the  first  chapter  of  1  Cor- 
inthians  we  are   told,   "Not  many   wise   after   the 


106  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble  are  called." 
Still  this  leaves  us  room  to  infer  that  some  of 
these  classes  were  called.  There  are  also  accounts  of 
various  classes  in  the  Acts.  Cornelius,  for  example, 
and  the  jailer  at  Philippi  represent  the  military; 
Sergius  Paulus,  the  official ;  Lydia,  the  mercantile ; 
Dion^'sius  of  Athens,  the  philosophic ;  Gaius  and 
Philemon,  if  they  were  Gentiles,  the  respectable  and 
wealthy;  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  the  working;  and 
Onesimus,  the  slave  class.  No  doubt  there  were 
more  of  all  these,  and  other  classes  too;  but  chiefly 
then,  as  ever  since  then,  in  all  lands,  the  majority 
were  from  the  humbler  walks  of  life.  In  organiza- 
tions thus  composed  of  the  various  elements  of 
society  it  is  usual  for  the  minorit}'  of  Avealth  and 
culture  to  have  authority  somewhat  dispropor- 
tionate to  their  number,  and  the  outcome  is  usually 
a  compromise,  or  resultant  of  forces.  We  may  con- 
jecture, therefore,  that  these  first  societies  of  Chris- 
tians, composed  of  all  the  various  elements  of  the 
Gentile  world,  together  with  a  sprinkling  of  Jews 
and  i)roselytes,  Avould  be  not  exactly  like,  and  yet 
not  wholly  unlike  existing  institutions.  We  may 
further  infer  that  the  Apostles  in  founding  churches 
among  the  Gentiles  would  naturally  adapt  them  as 
far  as  was  consistent  with  Christian  principles,  to 
organizations  with  which  the  people  were  already 
familiar;  and  so  the  character  of  the  people  would 
influence  in  some  measure  the  organization  of  the 
churches. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  known  that  there  were 
numerous  societies  of  various  sorts  existing  in  the 
Eoman    empire    at    this    time.     The    subject    was 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  lOT 

thoroughly  investigated  by  the  late  Professor  Edwin 
Hatch,  following  Moinnisen  and  others,  more  par- 
ticularly in  the  study  of  the  inscriptions.  There 
were  trade  guilds,  workmen's  unions,  literary  socie- 
ties, benevolent  orders  and  various  others,  all  very 
like  those  which  prevail  so  extensively  among  us  to- 
day. In  addition  to  these  there  were  religious  as- 
sociations devoted  to  particular  kinds  of  worship. 
Thus  the  organization  of  Christian  believers  into 
societies  for  the  purposes  of  worship  and  pro- 
pagandisni  was  nothing  strange  in  that  age;  it  fell 
in  with  the  established  custom.  In  these  societies 
among  the  people  there  were  of  course  differences 
as  to  organization  and  government,  but  at  least  two 
general  features  are  analogous  to  those  of  the  New 
Testament  churches.  These  were  self-government 
and  elected  officers.  These  societies  managed  their 
own  affairs,  and  were  independent  both  as  regards 
each  other  and  any  supreme  authority  over  them 
all.  Each  had  its  officers,  usually  a  president,  and 
often  also  an  ofticial  body  of  some  kind.  Thes<* 
officers  were  variously  named  so  as  to  designate 
their  duties  of  administration.  It  has  been  claimed, 
but  not  satisfactorily  proven,  that  one  of  the  names 
for  the  presiding  officer  was  cpiscopos. 

Were  the  Apostles,  in  forming  the  churches  among 
their  Gentile  converts,  influenced  much,  or  even  at 
all,  by  the  nature  and  organization  of  these  secular 
and  religious  societies?  There  is  no  trace  of  such 
influence;  still  it  is  conceivable,  perhaps  even 
probable,  that  the  Apostles  may  have  somewhat 
conformed  the  internal  arrangements  of  the 
churches   to  those   of  institutions   with   which   the 


108  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

people  were  already  familiar,  so  far  as  these  were 
not  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  Further 
than  this  we  cannot  safely  go.  It  is  more  likely 
that  in  the  succeeding  age  the  influence  of  these 
Gentile  societies  brought  into  the  churches  un- 
scriptural  elements  than  that  the  Apostles  con- 
sidered them  in  the  foundation  of  the  churches. 
Altogether,  then,  we  may  say  that  the  Gentile  in- 
fluence upon  the  organization  of  the  apostolic 
churches  must  have  been  very  slight  in  fact,  and  is 
mostly  a  matter  of  conjecture. 

Much  more  to  our  purpose,  and  greater,  is  the 
light  which  we  have  from  the  early  Christian  litera- 
ture. That  which  is  referred  to  in  this  discussion 
consists  of  the  writings  of  the  so-called  Apostolic 
Fathers,  that  is,  the  works,  or  fragments,  of  Clement 
■of  Rome  (aboiit  A.  D.  97),  the  Epistle  to  Diogne- 
tus,  (130),  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  (about  150),  the 
Epistle  of  the  Church  at  Smyrna  concerning  the 
martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius, 
(the  seven  in  the  shorter  Greek  form,  date  probably 
about  112  to  117),  the  Didache,  or  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  (probably  not  later  than  160),  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  (about  100)  ;  and  the  writings 
of  Justiu  Martyr  (110-165)  and  Irempus,  (120-202). 

In  studying  this  early  literature  with  a  view  to 
discovering  what  light,  if  any,  it  throws  on  the 
organization  of  the  Ncav  Testament  churches,  we 
must  keep  in  mind  several  preliminary  considera- 
tions: (1)  The  difficulties  of  patristic  studies  in 
general  are  great.  There  is  much  reading  for  little 
fruit.  It  is  hard  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  state- 
ments made,  and  there  are  many  obscurities  both 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  109 

of  text  and  of  interpretation.  (2)  In  following  the 
great  scholars  who  have  worked  over  the  field,  we 
must  remember  that  in  one  way  or  another  nearly 
all  their  works  are  what  Germans  characterize  as 
tendency  ivritings,  that  is  to  say,  they  were  written 
to  establish  a  theory,  either  churchly,  or  critical. 
We  OAve  grateful  recognition  to  such  men  as  Bing- 
ham, Coleman,  Neander.  Ritschl,  among  the  older 
writers,  and  Lightfoot,  Hatch,  Harnack  and  others 
among  the  more  recent.  (3)  We  must  distinguish 
between  what  this  literature  reveals  concerning  the 
existence  and  character  of  the  church  polity  pre- 
valent in  its  own  time,  and  what  it  teaches  us  con- 
cerning the  polity  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
former  bears  upon  the  historic  development  of 
church  polity,  which  will  be  considered  later,  and 
the  latter  is  mostly  inferential;  for  the  early 
Christian  writers  have  little  or  nothing  directly 
bearing  upon  the  Xew  Testament  polity.  But  from 
their  statements  as  to  the  institutions  of  their  own 
times  Ave  may  gather  much  to  confirm  or  modify 
our  conclusions  drawn  from  the  New  Testament  it- 
self, and  from  the  other  sources  already  considered. 
In  regard  to  the  churches  themselves  we  shall  find 
some  information.  In  the  relations  of  the  churches 
to  each  other,  the  early  literature  exhibits  no  trace 
of  a  higher  ecclesiastical  or  governing  body.  A  dis- 
puted passage  in  Irenaius  {Against  Heresies,  c.  III.^ 
Sec.  2)  gives  a  hint  that  already  the  church  at  Rome, 
with  her  distinguished  line  of  bishops  reaching,  ac- 
cording to  tradition,  back  to  the  Apostles,  was  ac- 
corded a  sort  of  leadership  among  the  churches ;  but 
as  to  lordship,  that  was  not  yet  heard  of;  nor  is 


110  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

there  any  mention,  or  even  hint  so  far  as  is  known, 
of  any  general  authoritative  body.  The  two  New 
Testament  senses  of  the  word  church  distinctly  ap- 
pear; even  the  expression  "Holy  Catholic  (that  is, 
universal)  Church"  occurs  in  the  Epistle  of  the 
Church  at  Smyrna.  And  in  a  number  of  other  pas- 
sages in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  the  general  collective 
sense  of  ecclesia  is  found.  As  yet,  however,  there  is 
no  trace  of  a  great  general  organization ;  that  was  to 
come  later.  On  the  other  hand  the  local  sense  of 
ecclesia  is  still,  as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  more 
common  one.  The  independence  of  the  local  churches 
is  clearly  recognized  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
though  these  churches  corresponded  with  each 
other  and  had  many  interests  in  common.  This  is 
commonly  admitted  by  scholars.  In  fact  this  in- 
dependence lingered  long  after  the  establishment 
of  the  episcopacy,  and  thus  leaves  a  strong  inference 
that  it  was  the  rule  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  regard  to  the  functions  of  the  local  church  we 
have  some  confirmation  of  the  inferences  hitherto 
made  from  the  New  Testament.  Clement  of  Rome 
and  Polycarp  distinctly  teach  that  the  churches 
acted  in  the  reception  and  discipline  of  members, 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  later  witness  of 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian.  In  the  Epistle  of  Poly- 
carp, chapter  11.,  there  is  mention  of  Valens,  a  pres- 
byter who  had  fallen  into  error;  and  the  church  is 
exhorted  to  exercise  discipline  in  his  case.  In  re- 
gard to  the  election  and  removal  of  officers  the  evi- 
dence is  emphatic.  This  power  inhered  in  the  local 
church. 

In  regard  to  the  officers  there  is  considerable  men- 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  Ill 

tion  of  both  "apostles"  and  "prophets''  in  the 
Didachc.  as  missionaries;  but  in  most  of  the  other 
writings  the  tendency  to  restrict  the  term  "apostle" 
to  the  Twelve  and  Paul  already  appears;  and  the 
larger  use  of  the  word  now  disappears.  The  gradual, 
or  local,  or  sporadic  rise  of  the  episcopac3%  and  the 
elevation  of  the  diaconate  into  an  order  of  clergy, 
may  both  be  traced  as  beginning  in  the  i)atristic 
period.  Now  the  inferences  from  this  fact  back  to 
the  New  Testament  will  be  made  according  to  the 
prepossession,  or  general  habits  of  thought  of  the  in- 
vestigator. A  believer  in  bishops  and  apostolic  suc- 
cession will  see  in  this  early  rise  of  episcopacy  an 
inference  that  it  existed  at  least  in  germ  in  the  apos- 
tolic age.  Ltghtfoot  suggests,  though  he  does  not 
press  the  point,  that  it  originated  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Ephesus,  and  may,  therefore,  have  had  the 
sanction  of  the  Apostle  John.  Those  who  deny  epis- 
copacy, however,  will  say  that  its  rise  in  the  post- 
apostolic  age  is  -proof  that  it  did  not  exist  in  the 
apostolic  age  itself.  If  j^ou  show  that  it  actually 
began  150  years  after  Christ  you  prove  an  alihi 
against  its  earlier  origin.  As  to  the  pastoral  office, 
the  identity  of  bishop,  elder  and  pastor  is  confirmed. 
The  term  pastor  does  not  seem  to  occur  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  There  is  coming  to 
be  just  a  trace  of  distinction  between  bishop  and 
elder,  but  in  most  cases  they  are  evidently  the  same. 
This  is  generally  admitted.*  Polycarp  in  the  salu- 
tation of  his  Epistle  to  the  church  at  Philippi  says : 
"Polycarp  and  the  presbyters  with  him  to  the  church 

*Cf  Clement  of  Rome,  U  21,  42,  44  and  45;  the  Epistle  of 
Polycarp,  in  the  salutation  and  in  chapter  6. 


112  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

at  Philippi."  And  in  the  6th  chapter  he  says: 
''Let  the  presbyters  be  compassionate  and  merciful 
to  all,  bringing  back  those  that  wander,  visiting  the 
sick  and  needy,  including  the  widow,  the  orphan 
and  the  poor,  always  providing  that  which  is  becom- 
ing in  the  sight  of  God  and  man."  These  are  evi- 
dently the  duties  of  the  bishop,  but  the  officers  are 
called  presbyters.f  The  authority  of  the  office  as 
being  merely  spiritual  and  subject  to  that  of  the 
church  is  clearly  shown.  Clement  of  Rome,  chap. 
1,  says:  ''For  ye  did  all  things  without  respect  of 
persons  and  walked  in  the  commandments  of  God, 
being  obedient  to  those  who  had  the  rule  over  you, 
and  giving  all  fitting  honor  to  the  presbj'ters' among 
you."  Also  in  chapter  21  he  says :  "Let  us  reverence 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  whose  blood  was  given  for 
us;  let  us  esteem  those  who  have  the  rule  over  us." 
Similar  indications  may  be  found  in  Polycarp,  chap. 
5;  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  Vision  2,  §  4,  and  in 
the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Didache.  The  functions 
of  the  office  are  shown  to  have  been  teaching,  the  ex- 
ercise of  discipline  and  the  oversight  of  the  flock, 
the  latter  two  being  the  more  insisted  upon.  Indi- 
cations of  this  may  be  found  in  the  Didache,  chap. 
15,  and  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Polycarp's  letter 
already  quoted.  The  plurality  of  elders  in  the 
churches  is  also  abundantly  confirmed  in  these  writ- 
ings and  generally  admitted  by  scholars. 
The  deacons  are  mentioned  in  a  good  many  places.^ 

tCf.  Didach6,  chap.  15. 

+Cf.  Clement  of  Rome,  chap.  42;  Polycarp,  chap.  5;  Igna- 
tius to  the  Magnesians,  chap.  6,  to  the  Trallians,  chap.  7;  Di- 
dache, chap.  15,  and  Justin  Martyr's  Apology,  chaps  1,  65,  67. 


LIGHT  FROM  OUTSIDE  SOURCES.  113 

In  one  of  these  Justin  Martyr  is  speaking  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments  and  says:  "There  is 
then  brought  to  the  president  of  the  brethren  bread 
and  wine  mixed  with  water,  and  he  taking  them 
gives  praise  and  glory  to  the  Father  of  the  universe 
through  the  name  of  the  Son  and  the  Holv  Ghost. 

And    when    the    president    has    given 

thanks,  and  all  the  people  have  expressed  their  as- 
sent, those  who  are  called  by  us  deacons  give  to  each 
of  those  present  to  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine 
mixed  with  water,  over  which  the  thanksgiving  was 
pronounced,  and  to  those  who  were  absent  fhvy 
carry  away  a  portion."  It  thus  appears  that  the 
distribution  of  the  elements  was  early  a  pn"t  of  the 
deacons'  work.  They  also  had  the  care  of  the  poor, 
or  assisted  the  pastor,  who  is  often  called  the  presi- 
dent, in  caring  for  the  widows,  the  orphans  and  the 
poor.  In  some  passages  of  these  writings  the  dea- 
cons are  associated  with  the  elders  in  the  exercise 
of  discipline.  This  connection  with  charities  and 
discipline  caused,  in  later  times,  the  deacons  to  be 
raised  into  an  order  of  the  ministry;  but  it  is  evi- 
dent that  this  is  a  later  development  and  is  without 
Scripture  foundation. 

In  reviewing  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  four 
sources  of  information  which  we  have  considered  in 
this  chapter  we  may  say  that  the  argument  from 
this  quarter  is  very  precarious  and  only  inferential. 
It  has  been  used  with  force  and  learning  in  favor 
of  Episcopacy,  Presbyterianism  and  Congregation- 
alism. The  last,  however,  seems  the  most  reason- 
able, inasmuch  as  it  coincides  with  what  the  New 
Testament  itself  indicates  concerning  the  polity  of 


114  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  churches.  In  brief,  all  the  evidence  from  out- 
side leaves  the  New  Testament  order  unshaken,  but 
teaches  us  emphatically  that  our  only  trustworthy 
dependence  is  the  Word  of  God. 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  115 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  YII. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  CHURCH  POLITY  TO  THE  REFORMA- 
TION. 

I.  The  second  century  to  Constantine:  150-325. 

1.  Gradual  development  of  Episcopacy, 

2.  Conception  of  the  ''Church  Universal," 

3.  Synods,  or  provincial  assemblies. 

II.  Council  of  Nicaea  to  Gregory  I. :  325-590. 

1.  State  and  Church  under  Constantine. 

2.  Council  of  Nicaea. 

3.  The  Patriarchate. 

4.  Papacy. 

(1)  Tradition  of  Peter,  primate  of  the  Apos- 

tles, as  founder. 

(2)  Only  Patriarch  in  the  West. 

(3)  Prestige  of  Rome. 

(4)  Less  importance  of  the  other  three. 

III.  Gregory  I.  to  Gregory  VII. :  590-1073. 

1.  Development  of  the  Papacy. 

(1)  Territorial,  or  missionary. 

(2)  Political. 

(3)  Hierarchical. 

2.  Schism  with  the  East. 

(1)  Rivalry  of  the  Patriarchs. 

(2)  Diflferences  of  doctrine,  etc. 

IV.  Gregory  VII.  to  the  Reformation:  1073-1517. 

1.  Further  development  of  the  Papacy. 

2.  The  Greek  Church. 

3.  Monasticism. 

4.  The  Sects. 


CHAPTEK  VII. 

CHURCH   POLITY  IN  HISTORY. 
DEVELOPMENTS  TO  THE  REFORMATION. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  found  not  much  light 
on  the  New  Testament  polity,  but  we  began  to  ob- 
serve in  the  post-apostolic  times  some  indications 
of  a  development  toward  a  new  order  of  things. 
Leaving  now  the  New  Testament  and  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  we  take  our  point  of  departure  at  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  to  trace  the  his- 
toric course  and  development  of  church  polity  on 
to  the  beginning  of  the  Keforraation  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  Only  a  hasty  survey  will  be  made  in  order 
to  get  our  bearings  and  connect  modern  church 
polity  with  that  of  the  New  Testament.  In  making^ 
this  survey  it  is  proper  to  remark  that  we  are  not 
now  seeking  any  authority  whatever  for  church 
polity.  The  authority  for  our  practice  resides  solely 
in  the  New  Testament  itself.  We  are  simply  seeking^ 
the  facts  regarding  the  developments,  that  they  may 
assist  us  to  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  present 
conditions  of  church  polity  among  the  leading  Chris- 
tian sects,  and  with  the  special  view  of  exhibiting^ 
hereafter  the  correspondence  between  Baptist  ideas 
of  church  order  and  those  which  we  find  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  will  be  convenient  to  divide  the  time 
set  apart  for  discussion  in  this  chapter  into  four 
periods,  as  follows:     (1)  From  the  second  century 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  117 

to  Constantine,  150-325;  (2)  From  the  Council  of 
Nictea  to  Gregory  I.,  325-590;  (3)  From  Gregory  I. 
to  Gregory  VII.,  590-1073;  (4)  From  Gregory  VII. 
to  the  Reformation,  1073-1517. 

We  take  up,  then,  the  first  period,  from  the  second 
century  to  Constantine,  A.  D.  150-325.  This  ground 
has  been  much  and  ably  contested  in  the  interest  of 
Episcopacy,  Presbyterianism  and  Congregational- 
ism. Whichever  theory  one  takes  up  he  can  find 
support  for  it  in  the  literature  of  this  period.  It 
was  an  age  of  transition,  and  the  line  of  development 
was  not  yet  fixed,  though  its  tendency  in  the  direc- 
tion of  episcopacy  is  already  apparent.  Three 
points  of  interest  are  to  be  noticed :  the  officers,  the 
church  and  the  councils. 

In  regard  to  the  officers  of  the  church  within 
this  period  we  find  the  germ,  and  a  fair  degree  of 
development,  of  the  episcopacy.  In  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  the  Didache  and  other  writings 
of  the  earliest  period  it  has  been  noticed  that  as  yet 
the  bishops  and  elders  are  the  same,  and  the  dea- 
cons are  not  recognized  as  an  order  of  the  ministry ; 
but  in  the  writings  of  Ignatius,  Irenaeus  and  others, 
just  about  the  beginning  of  the  period  we  now  have 
under  discussion  the  bishop  appears  as  one  apart 
from,  and  above,  the  presbyters,  and  the  deacons 
are  coming  to  be  regarded  as  an  order  in  the  minis- 
try. As  yet,  however,  the  bishop  is  only  the  pastor 
of  one  church  with  elders  and  deacons  under  him. 
In  the  more  populous  towns  and  cities  the  churches 
are  large  and  probably-,  though  this  point  cannot  be 
regarded  as  certainly  settled,  they  are  divided  into 
several  congregations  with  different  meeting  places 


118  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

and  under  the  direction  of  the  presbyters.  Thus 
the  bishop,  while  pastor  of  the  one  church  in  a 
place,  has  the  oversight  of  several  different  congre- 
gations, with,  possibly,  meeting  places  in  different 
parts  of  the  same  city;  but  this  does  not  prevail  in 
the  country  and  in  the  smaller  towns,  where  the 
bishop  is  yet  the  pastor  of  a  single  church.  Now 
also  the  rites  of  ordination  and  confirmation  are 
reserved  to  the  bishop.  By  ordination  it  becomes  an 
exclusive  episcopal  function  to  set  apart  candidates 
for  the  ministry.  What  was  before  the  work  of  the 
eldership  as  a  body  becomes  now  the  exclusive  right 
of  the  president  of  the  board  of  elders,  that  is,  the 
bishop,  and  thus  the  idea  of  receiving  an  episcopal 
ordination  in  direct  succession  from  the  Apostles 
becomes  important.  Confirmation  arose  from  the 
practice  of  the  elder's  laying  his  hands  upon  a  con- 
vert immediately  after  baptism.  Some  suppose  that 
this  practice  is  indicated  in  1  Tim.  5:22  where  the 
Apostle  says:  ''Lay  hands  hastily  on  no  man;" 
though  that  is  doubtful.  It  is  true,  however,  that 
early  in  Christian  history  the  practice  appears,  and, 
as  in  the  case  of  ordination,  what  was  originally 
the  office  of  the  elders  indiscriminately  now  comes 
to  be  reserved  for  the  leading  elder  or  bishop. 
This  rite  of  confirmation  comes  afterward  to  have 
great  importance  in  the  episcopal  churches.  It 
reserves  to  the  bishop  the  right  to  pass  upon 
all  applicants  for  church  membership,  and  thus 
gives  him  great  power  in  determining  the  char- 
acter of  the  membership  in  his  churches.  Baptism 
was,  so  to  speak,  validated  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands   of  the  bishop,   and   so  we   see   how   in 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  119 

the  case  of  children  who  were  baptized  in  infancy 
the  ceremony  was  not  considered  complete  until 
they  afterwards  made  confession  and  were  thus 
confirmed.  And  in  I'egard  to  irregular  baptism  by 
heretics  and  other  improperly  qualified  adminis- 
trators the  act  of  confirmation  on  the  part  of  the 
bishop  was  supposed  to  cover  all  irregularities.  We 
thus  see  that  these  two  important  rites  of  ordina- 
tion and  confirmation  were  already  beginning  to  be 
placed  exclusively  in  the  bishop's  hands,  and  thus 
his  power  was  greatly  enlarged  and  his  importance 
was  magnified. 

In  regard  to  the  church,  let  us  observe  some  mat- 
ters of  importance.  With  this  advance  of  the  bishop 
there  was  also  a  development  in  the  conception  of 
the  church.  The  local  churches  were  still  independ- 
ent, though  they  corresponded  with  'each  other. 
There  was  still  no  great  organization,  no  general 
governing  authority,  no  national  or  territorial  body; 
but  the  idea  of  the  church  universal,  that  all  genu- 
ine Christians  are  really  one  body,  begins  to  take 
more  definite  shape,  and  the  church  comes  to  be 
conceived  of  as  an  actually  unified  and  visible  whole. 
We  find  the  phrase  "Catholic  (that  is,  universal) 
Church"  in  this  sense  already  in  the  Epistle  of 
Ignatius  to  the  Smjjrnaeans,  chap.  8,  and  in  the 
Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna  on  the  Martyrdom^ 
of  Polycarp.  When  we  come  to  the  writings  of 
Cyprian  about  the  year  251,  the  term  is  yet  more 
definite.  Up  to  this  time,  however,  it  means  only 
the  general  body  of  believers  as  distinguished  from 
the  local  congregations  and  including  them.  It 
founds  itself  upon  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  word 


120  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

church  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  but  shows  a 
tendency  to  grow  into  the  conception  of  a  grand 
organism,  of  which,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  no 
trace  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  Councils,  or  Synods,  of  this  age  assisted  in 
giving  more  definite  external  form  to  the  idea  of 
the  church  as  one  visible  body  of  believers  in  the 
world.  The  need  of  co-operation  among  the  various 
local  churches,  together  with  the  strongly  felt  neces- 
sity for  doctrinal  accord  in  the  face  of  the  multitu- 
dinous heresies  of  the  time,  gave  rise  to  church 
councils.  At  first  these  bodies  were  called  synods, 
a  word  which  simply  means  "a.  coming  together." 
This  was  a  Greek  term,  and  the  use  of  the  Latin 
word  concilium  in  later  times  is  an  indication  of 
the  growing  influence  of  the  Latin  church.  The 
synods  or  councils  were  composed  of  representatives 
of  the  churches  within  certain  localities  or  provinces, 
and  so  were  not  universal  but  provincial.  The 
members  were  at  first  bishops,  elders  and  even  lay- 
men. Gradually  these  bodies  grew  in  power,  helped 
on  by  the  tendencies  already  described.  Originally 
they  had  no  control  over  the  churches,  but  were 
simply  meetings  for  conference.  Early  in  the  fourth 
century  there  were  held  three  large  provincial 
synods,  one  at  Elvira  in  Spain,  another  at  Aries  in 
Gaul  and  the  third  at  Ancyra  in  Galatia.  These 
three  synods  exhibit  growth  in  the  importance  and 
power  of  provincial  assemblies  and  pave  the  way 
for  the  great  Council  of  Nicaea,  the  first  general 
council,  which  was  called  by  the  emperor  Constan- 
tine  in  325. 

The  next  period  is  from  the  Council  of  Nicaea  to 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  121 

Oregory  I.,  825-590.  In  this  very  interesting  and 
fruitful  ijeriod  in  church  history  four  things  bear 
especially  on  our  topic  of  church  polity,  viz.:  (1) 
State  patronage  of  the  church;  (2)  The  Council 
of  Nicaea;  (3)  The  patriarchate,  and  (4)  Progress 
toward  the  papacy. 

Very  important  are  the  relations  of  state  and 
church  as  they  are  established  within  this  epoch. 
The  first  Christian  emperor.  Constantine,  took  the 
Christian  religion  under  his  protection  and  made 
it  the  religion  of  the  state.  This  had  a  wonderful 
effect  on  the  church  in  many  directions,  particularly 
as  to  polity.  It  tended  to  define  still  more  the  visi- 
ble unity  of  the  church  as  a  grand  organization,  and 
it  made  the  emperor  as  the  supreme  ruler  in  the 
state,  the  natural  head  of  the  church  also,  in  tem- 
poral aff'airs,  with  a  strong  tendency  to  govern  it 
even  in  spiritual  affairs.  Laws  were  made  for  the 
government  of  the  church,  and  generally  its  position 
as  a  world-power,  a  commonwealth  within  the  com- 
monwealth, was  firmly  fixed. 

The  Council  of  Nicfea  gave  to  the  development  of 
church  polity  a  powerful  impulse.  This  great  and 
renowned  assembly  was  summoned  by  the  emperor 
in  the  year  325  to  consider  especially  what  should 
be  the  doctrine  of  the  church  on  the  question  of  the 
divinity  of  our  Lord;  but  while  primarily  called  to 
settle  a  doctrinal  question,  the  council  wonderfully 
helped  on  the  idea  of  the  catholic  unity  of  the  church. 
A  remarkable  fact  about  the  council  was  that  its 
membership  consisted  only  of  bishops.  Athanasius, 
who  had  so  much  to  do  in  shaping  the  work  of  the 
council,  was  not  a  bishop;  he  was  only  a  presbyter, 


122  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

and  did  not  have  a  vote  in  the  body,  which  yet  car- 
ried out  his  own  opinions. 

The  council  decided  matters  of  polity  as  well  as 
of  doctrine,  and  passed  rules  (canons)  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  at  large,  and  even  a  few  for 
the  regulation  of  church  matters  within  the  prov- 
inces. Thus  the  precedent  was  established  of  a 
general  council  acting  in  legislative  capacity  for  the 
whole  church,  or  body  of  Christians,  in  their  con- 
gregations throughout  the  provinces  of  the  empire. 
This  precedent  was  of  course  followed  and  con- 
firmed into  rule  by  all  the  great  councils  which  came 
after;  so  that  from  this  time  on  we  may  say  that 
the  visible  organization  of  the  church  universal  has 
swallowed  up  the  independent  congregations,  and 
has  consolidated  and  brought  to  the  minds  of  men 
as  a  definite  earthly  institution  the  rather  vague  no- 
tion of  the  earlier  times  concerning  the  church  uni- 
versal. To  all  intents  and  purposes  the  state-pro- 
tected hierarchy  is  now  the  church.  The  New  Tes- 
tament distinction  between  the  local  and  general 
meanings  of  the  word  ''church"  now  almost  entirely 
disappears  from  Christian  literature  until  the 
Reformation. 

The  third  important  step  in  ecclesiastical  devel- 
opment within  the  period  under  consideration  is  the 
Patriarchate.  An  order  of  bishops  of  superior  rank 
grew  up  in  this  way :  A  large  city  in  any  consider- 
able region  of  the  empire  having  smaller  cities  or 
towns  dependent  upon  it  was  called  the  metropolis, 
or  mother  city.  Naturally  bishops  of  the  churches 
in  these  large  cities  came  to  be  called  metropolitan 
bishops,  and  they  had  the  oversight  not  only  of  the 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  123 

churches  of  their  own  city,  but  in  the  adjacent 
cities,  towns,  and  even  villages  contiguous  to  the 
capital.  The  district  throughout  which  the  influ- 
ence of  the  metropolis  extended  was  called  a  diocese. 
This  word  was  derived  from  the  usage  of  the  em- 
pire. Some  of  the  smaller  divisions  of  the  provinces 
in  the  empire  were  called  "dioceses,"  the  word  indi- 
cating the  territory  under  the  administration 
(diokcsis)  of  the  civil  officers,  and  by  an  easy  transi- 
tion it  passed  over  to  the  church  and  signified  the 
district  comprising  the  churches  under  the  care  of 
a  metropolitan  bishop.  Thus  the  metropolitan 
bishops  became  great  lords  ruling  over  many  con- 
gregations, the  inferior  clergy,  and  even  o\^r  the 
bishops  of  the  smaller  churches  of  the  towns,  and 
over  country  pastors.  The  next  step  was  easy.  For 
convenience  of  administration  the  empire  had  been 
divided  into  four  departments,  of  which  the  capital 
cities  were  Rome,  Constantinople,  Alexandria  and 
Antioch.  The  imperial  representative  in  each  one 
of  these  capitals  was  called  a  prefect,  and  his  terri- 
tory a  prefecture.  Now,  as  was  natural,  the  metro- 
politan bishop  in  each  one  of  these  four  capitals 
came  to  have  a  commanding  influence.  Further, 
because  of  its  sacred  associations  and  the  pres- 
ence of  the  holy  places,  the  city  of  Jerusalem 
had  also  a  position  of  great  prominence.  The 
churches  at  all  five  of  these  cities,  except  Constanti- 
nople, according  to  the  then  well-accepted  tradition, 
had  been  founded  by  Apostles;  and  they  were,  there- 
fore, called  scdcs  apostolicae,  that  is  "apostolic 
seats,"  or  ''sees."  These  five  metropolitans  were  ac- 
cordingly honored   above  all   the   rest,  having  the 


124  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

■oversight  of  all  the  churches,  bishoprics  and  dio- 
ceses in  their  respective  provinces.  Already  the 
terms  ''father"  and  "patriarch"  had  been  applied  to 
bishops  and  other  prelates.  But  now  the  term  "pa- 
triarch"— father-ruler — is  given  by  pre-eminence  to 
the  metropolitan  bishops  of  the  five  cities:  Rome, 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem. 

The  next  step,  the  fourth  in  the  course  of  progress, 
was  very  easy ;  for  among  these  five  patriarchs,  there 
heing  an  odd  number,  one  must  be  in  some  sense 
the  leader  and  chief;  and  so  in  the  natural  course  of 
things  the  leading  place  fell  to  the  one  who  presided 
at  the  ancient  capital,  Rome.  Thus  we  come  to  the 
papacy.  Many  circumstances  conspired  to  make  the 
patriarch  of  Rome  the  head  of  the  visible  organiza- 
tion known  as  the  Catholic  Church.  Tradition  as- 
signed to  both  Peter  and  Paul  the  establishment 
of  the  church  and  bishopric  at  Rome,  and  direct 
apostolic  succession  from  Peter  was  very  early 
claimed  by  the  Roman  bishop.  About  the  year  440, 
the  then  bishop  of  Rome,  Leo  I.,  gave  the  necessary 
doctrinal  basis  to  this  assumption  of  supremacy  by 
his  interpretation  of  the  famous  passage  in  Matt. 
16 :18,  "Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  church,"  etc.  He  took  this,  as  Rome  has  ever 
since  taken  it,  to  assert  and  make  permanent  the 
primacy  of  Peter  among  the  Apostles,  and,  there- 
fore, of  all  the  successors  of  Peter  among  the  suc- 
cessors of  Apostles. 

Again,  the  patriarch  of  Rome  was  the  only  one 
for  the  western  division  of  the  empire,  and  his  some- 
what monarchical  position  in  that  part  of  the  world 
was  easily  won  and  retained;  that  is,  while  the  east- 


nEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  125 

ern  portion  of  the  empire  was  divided  into  three 
parts,  the  western  and  more  progressive  portion  was 
still  only  one  part;  and  thus,  both  in  territory  and 
influence  it  had  a  commanding  position  in  the  di- 
vided empire,  and  so  the  church  ruler  within  that 
portion  of  the  world  would  have  a  correspondingly 
important  position.  And  still  again,  the  old  tradi- 
tions as  to  the  city  of  Home  itself,  and  its  proud 
prestige  as  former  mistress  of  the  world  gave  force 
to  the  development.  Nor  must  the  decay  of  political 
government  in  the  West,  and  its  final  collapse  in 
476,  be  left  out  of  the  account.  The  bishop  of  Rome 
loomed  large  when  the  emperor  ceased  to  be.  All 
these  things  Avere  used  by  the  Roman  bishops  in  as- 
serting their  claims  to  supremacy  in  the  church.  And 
finally,  the  comparatively  less  importance  of  the 
other  three  patriarchates,  narrowed  the  contest  for 
ultimate  supremacy  to  Rome  and  Constantinople, 
with  the  odds  decidedly  in  Rome's  favor.  And  this 
brings  us  to  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great. 

Within  the  next  period  from  Gregory  I,  to  Gregory 
VII.,  590-1073,  the  development  of  the  church  goes 
on.  This  long  period,  including  as  it  does  the  epoch 
known  as  the  Dark  Ages,  presents  two  g-eneral  fea- 
tures of  great  interest  to  the  student  of  church 
polity,  viz.,  the  continued  growth  of  the  papacy,  and 
the  schism  with  the  Eastern  Church. 

Continuing  our  discussion  of  the  development  of 
the  papacy  from  the  time  of  Gregory  I.,  we  must 
take  account  of  three  lines  of  extension :  territorial 
or  missionary,  political  and  hierarchical.  The  first 
of  these,  the  territorial  or  missionary  development 
of  the  church  in  this  period  is  of  the  utmost  impor- 


126  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tance  in  regard  to  the  history  of  subsequent  ages; 
for  in  this  period  comes  the  great  missionary  work 
of  the  Roman  Church  among  the  European  nations. 
England,  France,  Germany,  Denmark  and  Sweden, 
were  brought  under  the  sway  of  the  Cross  within 
this  period.  One  of  the  chief  sources  of  Catholic 
power  to  this  very  day  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  new 
barbaric  nations  of  Europe  were  brought  in  their 
fresh  and  hardy  youth  under  the  control  of  the  Roman 
ideas  of  the  church,  without  ever  having  had  of  them- 
selves any  knowledge  or  tradition  of  apostolic  Chris- 
tianity. 

In  addition  to  this  missionary  enlargement  of  the 
church,  we  must  take  account  also  of  its  political 
growth ;  and  here  again,  there  are  some  points  of 
special  interest.  The  gradual  severance  of  Rome, 
ecclesiastically  and  politically,  from  the  Eastern 
Empire,  and  the  decay  of  the  latter,  served  to  em- 
phasize the  importance  of  Rome.  The  bishops  of 
Rome  were  compelled  to  have  a  certain  political  in- 
fluence within  the  city,  and  therefore  in  the  prov- 
inces of  Italy  and  all  the  West.  They  often  treated 
with  the  barbarian  invaders  in  matters  of  state. 
Thus  their  political  power  was  strengthened.  Then 
the  complicity  of  the  pope  in  the  establishment  of 
the  new  Western  Empire  under  Charlemagne,  about 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  led  to  the  close 
alliance  of  the  two  great  powers,  ecclesiastical  and 
imperial,  in  the  western  world.  To  this  must  be 
added  the  acquisition  by  the  Roman  see  of  actual 
territory  in  Italy  by  the  grants  of  Pepin  and  his 
son  Charlemagne.  The  bishops  of  Rome  thus  not 
only  exercised  influence  through  the  whole  of  the 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  127 

Western  Empire,  but  actually  as  temporal  princes 
had  a  considerable  portion  of  Italy  under  their  con- 
trol. These  provinces,  or  states,  of  the  church  were 
a  great  figure  in  the  subsequent  history  of  Rome  and 
all  the  world. 

In  addition  to  the  missionary  and  political  growth 
of  the  papacy,  its  hierarchical  development  must 
also  be  considered ;  for  this  is  what  chiefly  concerns 
us,  though  the  other  elements  of  growth  helped  it 
along.  The  two  Gregories,  I,  and  VII.,  mark  very 
important  epochs  in  the  establishment  of  the  papal 
hierarchy.  Gregory  T.,  590,  was  a  good  and  able 
man.  He  was  the  patriarch  of  Rome  in  the  trying 
days  of  political  turmoil  consequent  upon  the  Teu- 
tonic conquest.  He  was  in  sharp  rivalry  with  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  but  he  recognized  the 
other  four  patriarchs,  at  least  nominally,  sl^  his 
equals.  He  was  wise  enough  to  decline  with  em- 
phasis and  even  with  feeling  the  title  of  pope  or 
supreme  bishop  over  the  whole  church,  but  none  the 
less  did  he  grasp  at  the  power.  We  are  reminded 
of  the  tactful  way  in  which  the  Caesars,  both  Julius 
and  Octavius,  declined  the  royal  title  and  accepted 
a  new  one,  emperor,  while  they  concentrated  in  their 
own  hands  all  the  powers  of  the  old  Roman  republic. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  certain  supremacy  was  ac- 
corded to  the  bishop  of  Rome  throughout  the  world, 
and  his  supremacy  was  unquestioned  in  every 
quarter  except  Constantinople.  So  that  from  the 
time  of  Gregory  I.  the  papacy  may  be  considered 
as  an  established  institution.  There  is  no  turning 
back.  The  schism  with  the  Eastern  Church  and  the 
unholy  alliance  with  the  Western  Empire  consoli- 


128  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

dated  the  strength  of  the  Roman  see;  yet,  while 
within  this  period  from  590  to  1073  the  external 
power  of  the  papacy  is  permanently  established, 
the  tenth  century  witnesses  its  deepest  and  most 
shameful  moral  degradation;  but  that  the  papacy 
could  still  live,  and  even  reform  in  some  measure, 
through  all  this  horrible  moral  corruption,  shows 
how  great  was  its  force  and  vigor,  and  what 
a  supremacy  it  had  over  the  minds  of  men! 
Now  when  the  ambitious  and  able  Hildebrand 
ascended  the  papal  throne  in  1073,  and  took  the 
name  of  Gregory  VII.,  the  power  of  the  papacy 
had  reached  a  towering  height.  Completely  vanish- 
ed now  is  the  notion  of  separate  congrega- 
tions with  their  bishops  and  pastors.  The  great 
Roman  hierarchy  with  the  pope  at  its  head  is  now 
in  the  minds  of  men  the  Church ;  and  this  historic- 
ally developed  human  organization  with  all  its 
tyranny  and  corruption,  arrogates  to  itself  the  note 
of  exclusive  catholicity,  and  claims  with  daring  as- 
sumption over  all  other  forms  of  Christian  belief  to 
be  the  one  Church  Universal,  the  mystical  Body  and 
holy  Bride  of  Christ. 

Another  important  matter  of  church  polity  in  this 
epoch  is  the  final  separation  between  the  Eastern 
and  Western  churches.  As  was  before  pointed  out, 
the  natural  tendency  of  having  five  patriarchs  over 
the  church  would  be  toward  the  recognition  of  one 
as  supreme,  and  the  question  lay  for  its  final  settle- 
ment between  the  sees  of  Constantinople  and  Rome. 
Constantinople  could  claim,  though  not  without  pro- 
test, political  superiority  from  the  days  of  Constan- 
tine,  but  Rome  could  claim  on  the  contrary  its  great 


DEVELOPIMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  129 

aiitiqiiitj  and  its  then  unchallenged  tradition  of 
apostolic  foundation.  The  rivalry  between  the  two 
capitals  and  their  patriarchs  was  keen.  It  was 
(piickened  by  personal  differences  between  the  in- 
cumbents of  the  sees  at  various  times,  and  memora- 
bly in  the  ninth  century  between  Nicholas  of  Rome 
and  Photius  of  Constantinople.  As  Schaflf  cleverly 
expresses  it,  "Photius  would  tolerate  no  superior, 
Nicholas  no  equal."  Added  to  this  there  were  cer- 
tain differences  of  doctrine  and  worship,  and  deeper 
yet  lay  the  diversity  of  character  and  temper  be- 
tween the  people  of  the  East  and  the  West.  After 
various  attempts  to  patch  up  peace,  the  schism  was 
finally  comi)leted  about  the  middle  of  the  eleventh 
century,  and  though  serious  efforts  were  made  as 
late  as  the  thirteenth  century  to  reunite  the  two 
bodies,  the  breach  remains  unhealed  to  this  day. 

We  come  now  to  the  last  period  assigned  for  study 
in  this  chapter,  viz.,  from  Gregory  VII.  to  the  Refor- 
mation, 1073-1517.  During  this  time  the  principal 
things  to  be  considered  in  reference  to  church  polity 
are  four :  the  papacy,  the  Greek  Church,  monasti- 
cism,  and  the  sects. 

We  consider  first  the  further  development  of  the 
papacy.  The  energetic  and  able  Gregory  YII.  made 
large  claims  for  the  papacy,  and  these  Avere  pushed 
to  their  farthest  point  by  Innocent  III.,  1198-1216, 
of  all  the  popes  the  greatest.  But  soon  there  fol- 
lowed decline  and  dissension,  the  seventy  years'  so- 
journ of  the  popes  at  Avignon,  and  other  abuses, 
which  church  history  records.  The  point  which  spe- 
cially concerns  us  as  students  of  church  polity  is 
the  fact  that  the  papal  hierarchy  in  western  Europe 


130  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

is  now  virtually  synonymous  witli  the  church. 

We  should  also  give  attention  to  the  Greek  Church. 
Within  this  time  it  makes  no  special  advance,  ex- 
cept that  in  986  Russia  is  nominally  brought  into 
the  fold  of  Christianity  by  the  conversion  of  Count 
A^ladimir,  and  placed  under  the  patriarchate  of  Con- 
stantinople. This  conversion  of  Russia  was  a  sig- 
nificant and  fruitful  event  in  the  history  of  the 
Greek  Church.  The  Crusades  during  this  period 
brought  the  churches  of  the  East  and  West  into 
closer  touch,  but  to  the  good  of  neither  party.  The 
shameful  pillage  of  Constantinople  in  1204  by  an 
army  of  Crusaders,  and  the  temporary  establishment 
of  a  Latin  government  there,  induced  the  pope  to 
make  claims  of  supremacy  which  were  bitterly  re- 
sented, and  served  only  to  intensify  the  already  ex- 
isting breach  between  the  churches.  The  fall  of 
Constantinople  in  1453  was  a  grievous  blow  to  the 
Greek  Cliurch,  and  ever  since  then  its  growth  and 
progress  have  been  seriously  hindered  by  the  Turk- 
ish rule  in  the  East. 

A  significant  movement  in  its  effect  upon  the 
Christian  life  and  doctrine  and  also  upon  the  polity 
of  the  church  was  the  rise  and  growth  of  monasti- 
cism.  Far  back  in  the  early  centuries  men  disgusted 
with  the  world  had  withdrawn  to  live  in  asceticism, 
but  this  had  apparently  exercised  no  influence  on 
the  government  of  the  church.  Later  the  mission- 
ary monks  had  done  excellent  service  in  Scotland 
and  Germany,  but  chiefly  as  zealous  propagandists 
had  they  helped  Rome.  Now,  however,  within  the 
period  under  discussion,  monasticism  has  a  great 
revival,  and  its  contribution  to  the  power  of  the 


DEVELOPMENTS  TO  REFORMATION.  131 

papacy  is  large  and  lasting.  There  was  a  great 
spiritual  revival  after  the  disgraceful  degradation 
of  the  last  period.  The  rise  of  the  Dominican  and 
Franciscan  orders  of  mendicant  preaching  monks, 
the  reorganization  of  the  older  orders,  the  spiritual 
and  doctrinal  influence  of  the  monasteries  of  Clugny 
and  Clairvaux  were  great  helps  to  Romanism.  The 
monks  were  bound  to  the  papacy  by  the  most  solemn 
vows  of  poverty,  chastity  and  obedience,  and  this 
with  their  zeal,  their  popularity,  and  at  first  their 
moral  elevation,  did  much  to  strengthen  the  papal 
power. 

Finallj^,  in  this  revival,  partly  as  cause  and  partly 
as  consequence,  and  always  as  evidence,  may  be 
noted  the  rise  and  multiplication  of  sects  and 
heretics.  In  all  the  long  and  steady  evolution  of  the 
papacy  the  Greek  Church  had  not  been  its  sole  op- 
ponent. Here  and  there  along  the  course  of  that 
wonderful  development  some  reformer  would  ap- 
pear, found  a  sect,  or  at  least  gain  a  following,  and 
raise  a  protest  at  the  price  of  persecution  against 
the  corruptions  and  assumptions  of  the  papal  hier- 
archy. How  much  of  pure  Christianity  remained 
hidden  away  during  the  long  night  which  aided  the 
growth  of  Rome,  we  shall  perhaps  never  certainly 
know,  but  these  movements  become  more  frequent 
and  permanent  within  this  period,  and  prepare  the 
way  for  the  great  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. 


132  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  VIII. 

DEVELOPMENTS   SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 

I.  The  Greek  Church. 

1.  Changes  in  I'olity. 

(1)  The  Patriarchate  of  Moscow,  1589-1700. 

(2)  The  Holy  Synod,  since  about  1723. 

2.  Present  status. 

(1)  The  Synods  in  different  countries. 

(2)  The  Hierarchy. 

II.  The  Roman  Churcli. 

1.  Earlier  development.     Three  forces : 

(1)  The  Jesuits. 

(2)  The  Inquisition. 

(3)  The  Council  of  Trent. 

2.  Present  status. 

(1)  The  people  have  no  voice. 

(2)  The  Hierarchy. 

III.  The  leading  Protestant  Churches. 

1.  Lutherans. 

(1)  In  Europe,  state  churches. 

(2)  In  America,  sj'nods. 

2.  Presbyterians. 

(1)  Ruling  and  teaching  elders. 

(2)  Representative  bodies  and  courts. 

3.  Episcopalians. 

(1)  In  England,  state  church,  bishops. 

(2)  In  America,  bishops,  councils,  vestry. 

4.  Methodists. 

(1)  In  England,  conferences,  no  bishops. 

(2)  In  America,  conferences  and  bishops. 

5.  Congregationalists. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CHURCH  POLITY  IX  HISTORY. 
DEVELOPMENTS   SINCE  THE   REFORMATION. 

In  October.  1517,  the  monk  Martin  Luther  nailed 
to  the  door  of  the  church  at  Wittenberg,  in  Saxony, 
ninety-five  theses,  or  propositions,  which  lie  proposed 
to  defend  against  all  coiners.  They  were  especially 
directed  against  the  sale  of  indulgences  and  other 
Roman  Catholic  errors,  and  this  daring  act  is  justly 
considered  to  have  been  the  opening  of  the  great  Re- 
formation. It  was  a  new  and  fruitful  era  for  Chris- 
tianity and  for  the  world— the  greatest  movement 
in  history  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  In  the 
general  upheaval  of  Christendom  new  attention  was 
given  to  church  polity,  and  the  developments  since 
the  Reformation  have  been  of  the  utmost  interest 
and  importance. 

One  great  exception,  however,  must  be  made  as 
to  the  far-reaching  influence  of  the  Reformation.  It 
had  no  appreciable  effect  on  the  Greek  Church ;  yet 
within  the  modern  period  several  interesting  events 
have  occurred  in  the  polity  of  this  ancient  church. 
The  most  important  changes  were  in  regard  to  the 
patriarchate  of  Moscow,  and  the  Holy  Synod.  In 
1.580,  on  account  of  the  great  growth  and  importance 
of  the  church  in  Russia,  the  patriarchate  of  Moscow 
was  established  as  an  offset  to  that  of  Rome,  which 
had  been  swallowed  up  in  the  papacy;  so  that  for 


134  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

a  time  the  Greek  Church  again  had  five  patriarch- 
ates as  in  the  early  ages.  This,  however,  did  not 
last  much  more  than  a  century.  The  patriarchate 
was  suppressed  early  in  the  eighteenth  century 
during  the  reign  of  Peter  the  Great.  That  astute 
and  power-loving  monarch  wished  to  extend  his  own 
authority,  and  at  the  same  time  provide  a  better 
government  for  the  Russian  church;  he,  therefore, 
called  into  being  the  ^'Holy  Synod."  This  was  an  as- 
sembly of  bishops,  and  he  was  its  real  governor. 
Ever  since  in  Russia  the  Holy  Synod  has  been  the 
governing  power  within  the  church,  and  the  Czar 
governs  the  Synod.  Other  European  countries 
where  the  Greek  Church  is  strong,  as  Greece,  Aus- 
tria-Hungary and  others,  have  followed  Russia's 
example,  and  have  synods  which  are  appointed  by 
the  various  civil  authorities.  These  synods  are  nom- 
inalh'  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople.  In  Constantinople  itself,  of  course, 
the  power  of  the  patriarch  is  much  limited  and  over- 
shadowed by  the  tj'ranuous  Turkish  rule;  and  this 
is  true  also  of  the  patriarchates  of  Alexandria,  Jeru- 
salem and  Antioch. 

The  hierarchical  government  is  in  theory  by  the 
patriarchs  of  the  four  ancient  sees;  next  below 
these  are  the  metropolitans  and  archbishops;  then 
the  bishops,  the  priests  and  the  deacons.  In  Russia 
the  titles  of  metropolitan  and  archbishop  are  only 
honorary.  The  bishops  are  nominated  by  the  Synod 
and  appointed  by  the  government.  It  is  perhaps 
needless  to  remark  that  the  Synod  is  careful  to  nomi- 
nate those  who  would  be  acceptable  to  the  govern- 
ment.    The  people  have  no  voice  whatever  in   the 


DEVELOPMENTS  SINCE  REFORMATION.  135 

governnieut  of  the  church.  Monks  and  orders  exist, 
but:  they  have  no  ecclesiastical  control,  and  probably 
not  much  inliuence.  Such  is  the  polity  of  that  an- 
cient and  venerable  institution  which  calls  itself 
the  "Holy  Orthodox  Apostolic  Church.'' 

We  turn  now  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The 
effect  of  the  Reformation  on  the  papacy  was  imme- 
diate, profound  and  far-reaching.  Its  moral  effect 
was  good;  for  not  since  those  days  has  the  papacy 
sunk  to  such  degrading  depths  of  iniquity  as  be- 
fore, but  the  effect  on  the  theology  and  polity  of  the 
Roman  Church  was  only  to  confirm  its  anti-scrip- 
tural errors. 

In  the  earlier  stages  of  development  in  the  Roman 
Church  after  the  Reformation  there  was  a  strong 
effort  to  counteract  that  movement,  and  this  coun- 
ter-Reformation was  helped  on  by  three  great  forces : 
the  Jesuits,  the  Inquisition,  and  the  Council  of 
Trent.  The  Order  of  Jesuits  was  founded  by  Igna- 
tius Loyola  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, in  1540  it  was  established  by  papal  sanction, 
and  has  been  in  all  its  checkered  history  a  potent 
factor  in  the  consolidation  of  the  power  of  the  pope. 

Another  great  force  in  the  papal  development  has 
been  the  Inquisition.  This  infamous  tribunal  was 
founded  in  Spain  and  Italy,  to  inquire,  as  its  name 
indicates,  into  the  faith  of  suspected  persons;  and 
so  it  became  a  court  for  the  detection  and  punish- 
ment of  heresy.  Its  crimes  and  enormities  are  mat- 
ters of  history,  but  it  greatly  helped  to  fix  the 
Roman  polity  and  to  strengthen  the  power  of  the 
])apacy. 

The  third  great  influence  was  the  Council  of  Trent, 


136  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

which  met,  with  some  intermissions,  during  the 
3'ears  from  1545-1562.  This  was  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all  the  so-called  ecnmenical  Roman  councils. 
It  was  called  bv  Pope  Paul  III.,  at  the  instance  of 
the  emperor.  Charles  V.,  to  act  upon  the  troubles  of 
the  times,  which  meant  the  suppression  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, if  possible.  The  bishops  were  assembled 
from  all  parts  of  Europe,  but  the  Italian  and  papal 
element  predominated,  as  they  have  usually  done  in 
the  Roman  councils,  and  won  the  day.  This  coun- 
cil not  only  gave  to  the  Roman  Church  a  standard 
of  orthodoxy,  but  also  a  polity  strengthened,  defined 
and  consolidated,  with  the  pope  firmly  entrenched 
at  its  head.  In  the  profession  of  faith  based  on 
the  decisions  of  the  Council  o'f  Trent  and  put  forth 
in  the  year  1564.  a  candidate  for  admission  into  the 
church  has  to  declare  ( ^^ec.  10)  :  "I  acknowledge  the 
Holy  Catholic,  Apostolical,  Roman  Church  for  the 
mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches,  and  I  promise 
and  swear  true  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
successor  to  Saint  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles  and 
Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ.-' 

In  the  later  development  of  the  Roman  Church 
several  points  are  specially  noteworthy.  First 
among  these  was  the  conflict  of  the  papacy  with  Na- 
poleon I.  Xapoleon  was  not  the  man  to  brook  too 
much  interference  with  civil  concerns  on  the  part  of 
pope,  priest  or  anybody  else,  and  he  held  down 
the  Catholic  pretensions  with  a  firm  hand.  The  Con- 
cordat between  him  and  the  pope  defined  the  limits 
of  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  authority  in  France, 
and  as  was  to  be  expected,  very  much  to  the  inter- 
est of  the  imperial  government.     As  long  as  Xapo- 


DEVELOrMENTS  SINCE  REFOUMATIOX.  137 

leon  was  in  poAver  the  civil  ooverument  in  France 
and  most  of  the  countries  of  Europe  under  the  em- 
peror's influence  made  great  encroachment  upon  the 
authority  of  the  pope,  but  without  accomplishing 
much  that  was  permanent,  except  that  the  political 
power  of  Rome  was  weakened. 

Another  event  of  great  importance  was  the  con- 
solidation of  Italy  into  a  kingdom  under  the  House 
of  Savoy,  the  reigning  dynasty.  The  dissensions  of 
the  Italian  states  were  great,  and  their  lack  of  unity 
was  a  marked  feature  of  Italian  history  from  the 
Middle  Ages  down  to  our  own  century.  Italian  pa- 
triots, authors  like  Mazzini,  statesmen  like  Cavour, 
and  soldiers  like  Garibaldi,  with  a  patriotic  king 
like  Victor  Emmanuel,  seeking  ever  to  expand  and 
strengthen  the  union  of  Italy  under  one  govern- 
ment, finally  accomplished  their  purpose.  The  po- 
litical rule  of  the  pope  was  completely  overthrown 
in  consequence  of  the  events  of  1870-'71.  The  de- 
feat of  France  at  Sedan  caused  the  swift  withdrawal 
from  Rome  of  the  French  troops  which  had  been 
the  main  stay  and  guaranty  of  the  pope's  political 
sovereignty.  The  French  troops  being  withdrawn 
there  was  nothing  for  the  pope  to  do  but  submit  to 
the  inevitable.  Victor  Emmanuel  entered  Rome 
September  20,  1870,  and  took  possession  of  the  Capi- 
tol amid  the  plaudits  of  the  people  of  Italy  and  of 
all  Europe,  except  the  Catholics.  The  pope  has  since 
considered  himself  a  prisoner  in  the  Vatican,  though 
he  has  had  his  personal  liberty.  The  States  of  the 
Church  have  been  absorbed  in  the  united  Italy 
under  the  House  of  Savoy,  and  it  is  not  likely  that 


138  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  papacy  will  ever  again  have  actual  territorial 
power. 

Another  great  event  in  modern  Roman  Catholic 
development  was  the  General  Council  of  1870,  known 
as  the  Vatican  Council.  This  bod}^  put  the  finishing 
touch  to  the  long  evolution  of  the  ages  and  formally 
decreed  that  the  pope  is  the  supreme  liead  of  the 
church,  eternal  pastor  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  divinely 
appointed  successor  of  Peter  in  the  primacy,  and 
that  when  he  speaks  to  the  whole  church  on  a  ques- 
tion of  doctrine  or  morals  the  deliverance  is  infalli- 
ble. It  is  one  of  the  most  striking  coincidences  of 
all  history  that  in  the  very  year  and  almost  at  the 
very -time  when  the  Vatican  Council  was  solemnly 
decreeing  the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of  the 
pope,  the  last  vestige  of  his  political  power,  so  far 
as  based  on  the  possession  of  territory,  was  swept 
from  under  his  feet.  The  council  met  in  May,  the 
decree  of  infallibility  was  passed  July  IS,  France 
declared  war  against  Prussia  July  19,  Sedan  was 
fought  September  1,  and  Rome  was  entered  Septem- 
ber 20. 

It  may  be  useful  to  give  some  attention  to  the  pres- 
ent status  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  its 
mode  of  government.  Throughout  all  this  long 
growth  one  thing  has  been  chiefly  prominent — the 
steady  advancement  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  his 
present  prominent  position.  What  a  distance  we 
have  traveled  from  the  simple  pastor,  Clement,  to 
Pius  X. !  From  the  fraternal  and  humble  epistle 
of  Clement  to  the  church  at  Corinth  to  the  audacious 
and  arbitrary  deliverance  of  the  Vatican  Council  of 
1870!     In  regard  to  the  church  itself,  long  since  the 


develop:mexts  since  reformation.  139 

people  have  ceased  to  have  any  voice  iii  the  inanage- 
meut  of  affairs.  The  Church,  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
sense,  is  now  the  body  of  the  faithful  everywhere 
under  the  earthly  headship  of  the  pope,  the  successor 
of  Peter  and  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  The  people  are 
divided  into  congregations,  or  parishes,  dioceses, 
provinces,  nations,  all  under  the  supervision  and 
control  of  the  appropriately  graded  officers.  The 
whole  government,  however,  has  long  been  swal- 
lowed up  in  the  all-ruling  hierarchy. 

Concerning  this  hierarchy,  it  would  be  tedious  to 
trace  the  complicated  details  of  official  government 
and  function.  The  main  features  are  as  follows: 
Beginning  with  the  lowest  order  of  clergj',  there  are 
the  deacons.  These  are  the  assistants  of  the  bishops, 
especially  charged  with  the  care  of  the  poor  and  the 
finances;  but  they  are  in  the  line  of  promotion  to  the 
higher  orders  of  the  clergy.  Next  above  are  the 
priests  in  charge  of  congregations,  or  parishes;  be- 
sides nmny  who  are  appointed  to  special  missions 
and  various  kinds  of  work.  Next  above  these  are 
the  bishops,  who  preside  over  dioceses  of  greater  or 
less  extent.  In  the  larger  dioceses  there  are  assist- 
ant bishops  who  are  called  suffragans.  There  are 
many  bishops  whose  title  is  only  nominal,  ''titular 
bishops.-'  They  are  made  bishops  of  dioceses  which 
have  no  actual  existence  and  were  formerly  called 
bishops  in  partihus  inpdcVmm,  that  is,  in  the  coun- 
tries of  unbelievers.  Next  above  the  bishops  are  the 
archbishops,  who  are  appointed  over  the  provinces 
of  the  church  in  various  parts  of  the  world.  These 
are  called  ]>rincps  of  the  church.  Besides  these 
regulai-ly  graded  officers  there  are  many  special  ones 


IttO  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

who  are  appointed  for  various  purposes.  These  are 
the  papal  legates,  imncios,  ablegates,  vicars  apos- 
tolic, and  the  like.  Next  above  the  archbishops 
come  the  cardinals,  that  is,  members  of  the  pope's 
council.  This  council  usually  but  not  necessarily  or 
always  consists  of  seventy  members;  fourteen  dea- 
cons, fifty  priests  and  six  bishops ;  but  these  titles 
are  nominal,  as  a  cardinal  deacon  may  be  a  priest 
in  fact,  and  cardinal  ])riests  may  be  bishops  and 
even  archbishops.  The  word  ^'cardinal"  is  derived 
from  the  Latin  cardo,  a  hinge,  and  in  its  adjective 
form  primarily  meant  that  which  belonged  to  the 
hinge,  that  upon  which  anything  hinged;  just  as  we 
use  the  word  "pivotal."  Thus  we  speak  of  "cardi- 
nal virtues."  "cardinal  principles,"  as  the  most  im- 
portant. In  early  times  the  most  important  clergy 
in  any  diocese  or  see  were  called  cardinal  deacons, 
priests  or  bishops;  later  the  term  came  to  be  re- 
stricted to  those  of  the  clergy  at  Kome  who  consti- 
tuted the  papal  council  and  elected  the  pope.  The 
cardii^als,  besides  having  various  other  official 
duties,  meet  at  the  call  of  the  pope  for  any  emer- 
gency which  requires  their  consultation,  and  on  the 
death  of  the  i)ope  they  meet  in  solemn  conclave  and 
elect  one  of  their  own  number  to  the  sacred  office. 
The  pope  is  the  papa,  that  is,  the  father,  of  the 
church,  the  title  being  derived  from  the  childish 
name  in  many  languages  for  father.  He  is  the  bishop 
of  Eome,  archbishop  of  Italy,  and  the  patriarch  of 
the  West,  though  the  titles  of  archbishop  and  patri- 
arch have  long  been  practically  discarded  for  those 
of  eternal  bishop,  eternal  pastor,  vicar  of  Christ, 
and  others. 


DEVELOPMENTS  SINCE  REFORMATION.  141 

We  must  now  give  attention  to  the  Prostestant 
churches  from  the  Reformation  to  the  present  time. 
The  Keformatioii  broke  with  Rome,  and  in  the  tur- 
moil Avhicli  followed  there  was  inevitable  confusion 
of  views  among  the  reformers.  Those  who  renounced 
allegiance  to  the  po[>e  did  not  agree  among  them- 
selves either  as  to  doctrine  or  polity,  and  their  "va- 
riations" are  henceforth  in  marked  and  striking  con- 
trast with  the  Roman  Catholic  unity.  It  would  be 
a  bewildering  and  profitless  task  to  trace  in  detail 
the  numerous  systems  of  church  polity  which  have 
been  in  vogue  since  the  Reformation.  Reserving  the 
Baptists  for  a  special  chapter,  let  us  briefly  consider 
the  five  leading  Protestant  denominations. 

We  naturally  begin  with  the  Lutherans.  In 
theory  Luther  believed  in  the  simple  polity  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  in  practice  he  was  led  by  cir- 
cumstances to  adopt  a  different  method  of  church 
government.  The  idea  of  a  "free  church  in  a  free 
state"  was  too  revolutionary.  Neither  the  people 
nor  their  leaders  were  as  yet  quite  ready  for  it.  The 
fanatic  excesses  of  some  extremists — among  them, 
unfortunately,  some  Anabaptists — in  their  advocacy 
of  these  views  and  of  others  not  so  scriptural  as 
these,  forced  Luther  to  recede.  At  one  time  good 
order  in  the  state  was  threatened  and  the  Reforma- 
tion seemed  to  him  to  be  in  danger  of  going  to 
wreck.  He  thought  he  needed  the  protection  and 
help  of  the  secular  power  to  carry  out  his  reforms 
and  to  save  from  tyranny  and  oppression  the  people 
who  followed  him.  Tliis  leaning  upon  the  civil  au- 
thorities, together  Avith  the  principle  (adopted  as 
protection  from  Rome)    that  every  country  should 


142  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

have  its  own  religion,  gave  the  secular  princes  too 
much  authority  in  church  affairs.  Hence,  the 
Lutheran  churches  have  been,  and  in  Europe  con- 
tinue to  be,  essentially  state  churches,  taking  on 
complexion  from  the  different  states  in  which  they 
exist.  In  Germany,  with  various  modifications  of 
detail  in  dilferent  portions  of  the  empire,  the  civil 
government  appoints  superintendents  from  among 
the  pastors,  and  these  have  certain  powers  of  over- 
sight over  the  congregations  in  their  districts.  It 
is  in  fact  a  sort  of  modified  episcopacy  without  the 
name.  Besides,  there  are  certain  ecclesiastical 
bodies  called  synods  and  consistories  in  which  lay- 
men as  well  as  pastors  have  a  part  in  the  regula- 
tion of  affairs  which  are  distinctively  religious.  In 
Sweden  the  name  and  to  a  certain  extent  the  func- 
tions of  the  bishops  were  retained  in  the  Lutheran 
churches,  and  the  bishops  are  appointed  by  the  civil 
government.  In  America  where  the  civil  power  has 
nothing  to  do  with  church  government  considerable 
diversity  prevails  among  the  Lutheran  churches,  but 
they  mostly  hold  to  a  form  of  polity  somewhat  be- 
tween the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational. 

We  next  notice  the  Presbyterian  churches,  or  as 
they  are  known  on  the  Continent  of  Europe,  the  "Re- 
formed." Closely  identified  with  Luther  in  many 
things,  though  quite  different  in  others,  were  the  Swiss 
reformers  Zwingli  and  Calvin.  In  polity,  though 
much  mixed  up  with  the  civil  powers,  they  recurred 
to  the  government  of  the  church  by  elders,  presby- 
ters, believing  that  this  order  was  founded  in  Scrip- 
ture and  sustained  by  the  history  of  early  Chris- 
tianity and  of  some  of  the  sects.    These  views  spread 


DEVELOPMENTS  SINCE  REFORMATION.  14:3 

from  Switzerland  and  France  to  Germany,  Holland, 
Scotland  and  England,  and  subsequently  to  our  own 
country.  Among  the  Presbyterians  again,  there 
were,  and  remain,  minor  differences  in  different 
countries  and  places;  but  their  general  character- 
istics are  much  the  same.  At  various  times  they 
have  leaned  to  the  state-church  and  theocracy. 
This  was  true  in  Geneva  in  Calvin's  time,  and  in 
Scotland  under  John  Knox,  who  was  an  ardent  dis- 
ciple of  Calvin;  and  in  the  time  of  the  Common- 
wealth strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  have  the 
Presbyterian  religion  adopted  in  England  instead  of 
the  episcopacy.  The  theory  of  the  Presbyterian 
polity  is  that  government  is  representative.  The 
people  elect  their  leaders  to  govern  as  representatives 
of  the  people.  Calvin,  it  seems,  fell  upon  a  distinc- 
tion between  lay,  or  ruling,  and  clerical,  or  teach- 
ing elders;  but  all  congregational  action  and  the 
general  standards  of  doctrine  and  discipline  are  sub- 
ject to  review  by  the  various  representative  bodies, 
the  Presbytery,  the  Synod,  and  General  Assembly 
as  the  court  of  last  resort. 

We  next  notice  the  Episcopal  Church,  as  it  is 
called  in  this  country,  though  in  England  they 
speak  of  it  as  the  Church  of  England  and  commonly 
describe  it  by  the  adjective  Anglican.  The  English 
Reformation  took  a  very  different  course  from  that 
of  Germany  and  Switzerland.  The  Norman  and 
Plantagenet  kings  had  on  various  occasions  resisted 
the  encroachments  and  assumptions  of  the  papacy, 
and  the  sturdy  English  people  usually  sympathized 
with  their  rulers  in  these  conflicts.  But  it  was  re- 
served for  the  fiery  and  headstrong  Tudor,  Henry 


144  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

VIII.,  to  break  with  Kome.  It  was  largely  a  per- 
sonal quarrel.  But  tyrant  as  he  w^as  he  could  never 
have  severed  England  from  Kome  unless  there  had 
been  a  powerful  sentiment  among  the  people  back 
of  him.  Having  forsaken  the  old  church  and  made 
the  breach  irrevocab'e,  he  assumed  to  be  head  of  the 
church  in  his  own  dominion.  The  conflict  of  opinion 
was  great  in  his  own  reign  and  in  those  of  his  three 
succeeding  children,  Edward,  Mary  and  Elizabeth. 
There  were  many  changes  back  and  forth.  The 
episcopal  form  of  government  was  retained,  but  not 
without  i)rotest.  Cranmer,  it  is  said,  was  not 
favorable  to  it,  but  he  was  Overruled,  as  was  com- 
monly the  case  with  him.  There  was  a  party  favor- 
ing episcopacy  and  a  party  against  it.  Compromises 
were  made,  but  there  was  then,  and  has  ever  con; 
tinued  to  be,  ?iiuch  dissent.  The  scheme  as  finally 
Avorked  out  is  that  the  soverign  and  parliament  rule 
the  church  as  part  of  the  body  politic,  but  the  two 
Convocations  of  York  and  Canterbury,  under  their 
respective  archbishops,  pass  on  many  matters  which 
are  distinctly  ecclesiastical.  The  bishops  and  in 
some  cases  the  lower  clergy  are  appointed  by  the 
government.  Some  of  the  benefices,  or  livings, 
among  the  lower  clergy  are  in  the  appointment  of 
the  proprietors  on  whose  estates  the  parishes  may 
be  situated.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  is  the 
primate  of  all  England.  Many  of  the  bishops  sit  in 
the  House  of  Lords  and  in  general  there  is  a  great, 
and  to  an  outsider,  a  confusing  mixture  of  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  government. 

In    America    the    Protestant    Episcopal    Church, 
which  is  of  course  an  olf-shoot  of  the  Anglican,  has 


DEVELOPMENTS  SINCE  REFORMATION.  145 

developed  a  singular  combination  of  all  three  of  the 
leading  polities.  They  have  bishops  who  are  elected 
by  their  conventions,  but  the  local  churches  and 
separate  congregations  are  governed  by  a  board 
called  the  vestry,  elected  by  the  congregation;  and 
then  the  conventions  and  convocations  are  repre- 
sentative bodies  which  legislate  for  the  churches. 
Thus  there  are  episcopal,  presbyterial  and  congre- 
gational elements  in  the  polity  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church. 

We  next  notice  the  Methodists,  or  as  they  are 
called  in  England,  Wesleyans.  The  Methodist 
Church  is  a  vigorous  daughter  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  has  a  history  and  character,  all  its 
own,  Avith  various  modifications  and  subdivisions 
in  different  times  and  places. 

Methodism  originated  about  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century  with  the  great  revival  movement 
under  the  lead  of  John  and  Charles  Wesley.  While 
students  at  Oxford  these  brothers  formed  a  society 
for  holier  living  and  more  vigorous  Christian  work 
within  the  Church  of  England;  but  later  under  the 
revival  as  the  '^Societies"  for  these  purposes  grew 
and  spread,  lay  preachers  and  exhorters  arose,  and 
after  a  time  the  people  who  had  been  gathered  into 
these  "Societies"  began  to  demand  that  they  should 
receive  the  ordinances  from  their  own  preachers, 
and  not  at  the  hands  of  the  priests  and  bishops  of 
the  Church  of  England.  Thus  it  was  that  the  "So- 
cieties" became  churches.  Then  "Conferences"  of 
the  preachers  were  instituted  to  look  after  the  in- 
terests of  these  "Societies."  Wesley  himself  never 
separated  from  the  Church  of  England,  but  after  his 


146  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

death  the  Wesleyan  ''Societies"  withdrew  and  or- 
ganized on  their  own  plan.  In  England  they  have 
no  bishops.  The  Conferences,  composed  of  preach- 
ers, regulate  the  concerns  of  the  church.  They  have 
officers  corresponding  to  the  presiding  elders  of  the 
American  polity. 

In  America  affairs  took  quite  a  different  turn. 
T>r.  Thomas  Coke  was  ''ordained''  by  John  Wesley 
as  "Superintendent  of  the  Societies"  in  America, 
and  was  authorized  to  confer  a  similar  ordination 
upon  Francis  Asbury,  who  was  already  in  this 
country.  In  the  city  of  Baltimore  in  1784  Coke 
and  Asbury  met  with  the  preachers  from  all  over 
the  country,  though  they  were  comparatively  few 
then.  Asbury  had  declined  to  accept  Mr.  Wesley's 
appointment  unless  it  was  confirmed  by  the  elec- 
tion of  his  brethren;  so  at  this  famous  conference 
Coke  and  Asbury  were  elected  to  the  superintendency 
of  the  Methodist  Societies  in  America  and  received 
the  title  of  bishop ;  thus  the  episcopate  has  remained 
a  fixed  institution  of  American  Methodism.  These 
officers  have  been  gradually  increased  in  number  to 
keep  pace  with  the  growth  and  divisions  of  the 
church.  They  are  elected  when  vacancies  occur,  or 
when  additional  ones  are  needed,  by  the  General 
Conferences,  which  meet  every  four  years. 

Methodism  is  a  great  organism,  essentially 
hierarchical,  as  the  government  was  originally  and 
still  is  chiefly  with  the  preachers,  though  of  recent 
years  lay  delegates  have  been  appointed  to  the  Con- 
ferences and  have  a  vote  in  the  management  of 
affairs.  The  system  consists  of  five  orders  of  con- 
ferences: the  church  conference,  for  the  local  con- 


DEVELOPMENTS  8IXCE  REFORMATION'.  147 

gregation ;  quarterly  conferences,  also  for  the  local 
churches  under  the  presiding  elders;  the  district 
conferences,  for  still  larger  sections;  the  annual 
conferences,  for  still  larger  territories  in  some  cases 
corresponding  to  the  different  States  of  the  Union; 
and  the  General  Conferences,  for  the  larger  bodies 
North  and  South,  and  for  the  other  divisions  of 
Methodism.  The  bishop  and  presiding  elders  have 
considerable  power  in  the  appointment  of  preachers 
over  the  various  charges.  The  itinerant  ministry  is 
a  marked  institution  of  the  Methodist  Church.  In 
early  times  a  man  could  be  preacher  in  charge  of  a 
circuit  or  station  only  for  six  months ;  the  term  was 
then  lengthened  to  a  year,  subsequently  to  two 
years,  and  tlnally  to  four  j^ears,  or  less  as  occasion 
demands.  The  northern  branch  of  the  Methodist 
Church  in  May,  1900,  by  vote  of  the  General  Con- 
ference abolished  the  time-limit. 

Lastly  we  notice  the  Congregationalists,  also 
known  as  Independents.  In  the  general  loosening 
of  old  church  ties  at  the  Reformation,  it  would  have 
been  strange  had  none  thought  of  returning  to  the 
simple  congregational  polity  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  seems  to  be  the  distinguished  honor  of  the  hated 
Anabaptists  to  have  insisted  upon  restoring  the  first 
principles  as  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament 
polity;  but  it  is  said  that  John  Hooper,  who  rather 
inconsistently  accepted  a  bishopric  under  Edward 
VI,,  only  to  be  martyred  under  Bloody  Mary,  held 
and  taught  that  there  should  be  no  connection  be- 
tween church  and  state,  and  that  each  local  church 
should  rule  itself,  co-operating  only  with  others. 
Later  in  England  the.*;e  ideas  were  more  definitely 


148  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

asserted  by  Robert  Browne,  about  the  year  1580. 
His  followers  were  at  first  called  Brownists,  then 
Independents;  as  yet  being  connected  with  the 
Church  of  England,  though  soon  they  separated  from 
that  body.  In  this  country  they  are  called  Cougre- 
gationalists.  Persecuted  in  England  for  their  non- 
conformity to  the  English  Church,  they  fled  to  Hol- 
land, and  thence  under  John  Robinson  came  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  to  Massachusetts.  As  to  polity 
they  have  always  insisted  that  the  New  Testament 
principles  should  govern ;  that  there  should  be  no 
hierarchy  of  priests,  no  representative  bodies  of 
elders,  but  that  each  local  congregation  should  man- 
age its  own  affairs  independently  of  others,  with 
sole  responsibility  to  Christ. 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        149 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  IX. 

PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES. 

Difference  of  opinion  among  Baptists  as  to  the 
question  of  church  succession. 

I.  Sects  before  the  Reformation. 

1.  Earliest  sects. 

2.  Mediaeval  sects. 

(1)  Before  the  twelfth  century. 

(2)  During  and  after  the  twelfth  century. 

II.  Anabaptists  of  the  Reformation  period. 

1.  Swiss.    Huebmaier  and  others. 

2.  German.    Some,  but  not  all,  were  extremists. 

3.  Dutch*.     Mennonites. 

4.  English.    Probably  connected  with  the  rest. 

III.  Baptist  Churches  since  the  Reformation. 

1.  In  England.     Confessions  of  faith. 

(1)  In  1611. 

(2)  In  1644. 

(3)  In  1689. 

2.  In  America.     Four  points  of  interest. 

(1)  The  officers. 

(2)  Independency  of  the  churches. 

(3)  Correspondence  and  co-operation. 

(4)  Relation  of  church  and  state. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

CHURCH   POLITY   IN   HISTORY. 
PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES. 

Having  traced  the  general  defelopmeuts  of 
church  polity  through  the  centuries,  it  is  fitting  that 
we  should  consider  now  w^hat  has  been  the  history 
of  those  New  Testament  principles  of  church  gov- 
,ernment  which  are  held  to-day  by  the  Baptists, 
though  not  by  them  alone.  We  are  not  here  con- 
cerned to  prove  or  disprove  what  is  known  as  ''Bap- 
tist succession"  or  "church  perpetuity."  Baptists 
may  be  divided  into  three  classes  of  thinkers  on  this 
question:  (1)  There  are  those  who  believe  that  a 
historic  succession  of  scripturally  organized 
churches  may  with  reasonable  probability  be  proved 
as  existing  in  various  sects  through  all  the  time 
from  the  Apostles  until  now;  and  while  the  name 
^'Baptist'-  is  of  comparatively  modern  date,  these 
various  sects  yet  held  in  the  main,  the  principles 
which  have  ever  characterized  the  Baptist  people. 
Our  Lord's  promise  in  Matt.  16:18,  ''On  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall 
not  prevail  against  it,"  is  held  by  this  class  of  think- 
ers to  guarantee  the  continuous  existence  of  properly 
organized  churches  throughout  all  time.  They  think 
this  view  is  supported  by  other  passages  also,  and 
by  the  establishment  of  Christianity  as  a  permanent 
institution  in  the  world.  (2)  Another  group  are 
those  who  hold  to  this  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        151 

promise,  but  they  admit  that  the  historical  evi- 
dence of  continuity  is  not  sufficient.  Tliey  main- 
tain, however,  that  the  exi.'^tence  of  properly  or- 
ganized churches  in  all  ages  can  never  be  disproved, 
though  it  may  not  be  historically  proved ;  and,  there- 
fore, we  are  warranted  in  holding  by  virtue  of  our 
Lord's  promise  that  there  has  been  an  orderly  suc- 
cession of  churches.  (3)  Another  class  of  Baptists 
are  those  who  do  not  interpret  our  Lord's  promise 
to  guarantee  absolutely  the  continuous  existence  of 
organized  churches,  but  only  of  the  church  universal 
or  collective,  that  is,  of  true  believers  in  Christ 
united  to  him  by  faith  whether  properly  organized 
or  not.  These,  like  the  preceding  class,  consider 
the  historical  proof  of  any  thing  like  a  continuous 
succession  to  be  inadequate.  Of  course  all  classes 
will  gladly  Avelcome  whatever  light  the  most  patient 
historic  research  may  be  able  to  throw  upon  the 
historic  continuity  of  Baptist  principles;  but  our 
present  task  is  briefly  to  consider  the  history  and 
settlement  of  the  views  which  Baptists  now  hold  as 
to  church  polity. 

We  shall  take  all  at  once  the  long  period  of  time 
before  the  Reformation,  that  is,  from  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  A.  D.  150,  to  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth,  1517.  While  the  papacy  was  work- 
ing out  its  development  of  perversion  and  departure 
from  the  apostolic  constitution  of  the  churches, 
various  sects  arose  from  time  to  time  to  challenge 
the  Roman  supremacy  and  assert  a  more  scriptural 
doctrine,  life  and  government  for  the  churches.  It 
is  convenient  to  distinguish  between  the  earlier  and 
later  of  these  sects. 


152  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

So  far  as  appears  the  very  earliest  of  these  bodies, 
if  they  may  be  considered  to  have  had  any  organiza- 
tion, did  not  differ  much  in  their  polity  from  the 
contemporary  stage  of  development  in  the  so-called 
Catholic  Church ;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
this  body  was  not  yet  so  far  away  from  the  scrip- 
tural model  as  it  came  to  be.  The  sects  which  are 
especially  worthy  of  mention  are  the  Montanists  of 
the  second  century,  the  Novatians  of  the  third 
century  and  the  Donatists  of  the  fourth  century. 
Concerning  this,  as  intimated  above.  Baptist  au- 
thors differ  as  to  whether  they  had  a  church  polity 
that  would  now  be  recognized  as  scriptural,  and 
therefore,  as  corresponding  to  that  which  prevails 
among  the  Baptists.  The  probabilities  are  that 
these  sects  were  more  nearly  in  accord  with  the 
Scripture  than  were  the  prelatical  churches,  though 
the  details  of  their  polity  are  not  as  yet  fully  dis^ 
covered.  Whether  they  ever  can  be  clearly  made 
out  is  perhaps  doubtful. 

The  sects  which  flourished  in  the  mediaeval  period 
may  be  divided  by  the  twelfth  century.  Prior  to 
that  time  sects  with  various  names  appear.  Among 
these  may  be  mentioned  the  Paulicians,  the  Bogo- 
miles,  the  Cathari  and  the  Albigensians.  These 
■seem  to  have  been  more  or  less  closely  connected 
with  each  other  and  to  have  held,  along  with  some 
grave  errors,  many  views  like  those  of  tjie  modern 
Baptist  churches.  Their  principles  of  church  gov- 
ernment, if  not  exactly  scriptural,  were  at  least 
mor-e  so  than  those  of  their  prelatical  opponents 
and  critics.  It  is  proper  to  say  that  these  sects,  or 
some  of  them,  have  been  claimed  with  fair  show  of 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.  153 

reason  by  the  Presbyterians,  as  well  as  the  Bap- 
tists. They  had  some  opinions  in  common  with 
both  the  congregational  and  presbyterial  forms  of 
government,  and  yet  were  not  exactly  like  either  of 
these  modern  bodies. 

During  and  after  the  twelfth  century  we  come  to 
clearer  light  and  find  that  many  reformers  and 
sectaries  arose  to  oppose  the  pretensions  and  errors 
of  Rome.  How  far  the  sects  which  appear  after  the 
twelfth  century  were  indebted  to  previously  exist- 
ing ones  for  their  views  of  truth,  we  do  not  know. 
Three  of  these  sects  may  be  named,  called  respec- 
tively from  their  leaders:  (1)  Petrobrusians  and 
Henricans,  that  is,  followers  of  Peter  of  Bruys 
and  Henry  of  Lausanne.  These  were  great  and  good 
men,  and  they  had  many  followers,  especially  in 
France,  who  were  almost  certainly  under  congrega- 
tional church  government.  (2)  Arnoldists,  follow- 
ers of  Arnold  of  Brescia  in  North  Italy.  Arnold  was 
a  great  soul.  He  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  converted 
church  membership  and  insisted  upon  a  complete 
separation  of  church  and  state.  His  work,  how- 
ever, was  chiefly  that  of  a  political  reformer.  He 
revolted  from  Rome  and  tried  to  overthrow  the 
political  power  of  the  pope.  He  was  defeated  and 
executed,  but  his  name  should  live  as  long  as  there 
are  lovers  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  in  the  world. 
(3)  The  Waldenses,  that  is,  followers  of  Peter 
Waldo,  sometimes  called  Vaudois  from  the  ^wiss 
canton  of  Vaud.  They  were  found  in  France, 
Switzerland  and  North  Italy.  They  arose  about 
1150  and  were  earnest  religious  workers.  They  were 
not  always  clear  of  psedobaptism  and  seem  to  have 


154  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

had  a  sort  of  ruling  eldership  among  them ;  and  on 
this  ground  they  are  claimed  by  the  Presbyterians. 
It  seems  also  that  they  had  a  kind  of  superintend- 
ency  among  their  elders  which  gives  them  some  af- 
finities with  our  modern  Methodists;  but  their  in- 
fant baptism  was  probably  a  later  development. 
Their  churches  were  certainly  congregational,  and 
on  this  ground  they  are  justly  considered  to  have 
preserved  in  a  measure  at  least  the  principles  of 
church  order  which  are  held  by  the  Baptists* 

We  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  Anabaptists  of 
the  Reformation  era.  These  were  found  in  many  of 
the  European  countries,  the  objects  of  persecution 
by  both  Catholics  and  Protestants.  Four  different 
groups  are  to  be  distinguished:  the  Swiss,  German, 
Dutch  and  English.  (1)  The  Swiss  Anabaptists 
were  led  by  Grebel,  Mantz,  Huebmaier  and  others. 
They  were  persecuted  by  Zwingli  and  other  reform- 
ers because  of  their  opposition  to  infant  baptism 
and  the  union  of  church  and  state.  It  appears  that 
they  had  pastors  and  deacons  for  officers,  and  a 
congregational  polity.  (2)  There  were  also  Ger- 
man Anabaptists.  Here  we  must  distinguish  care- 
fully between  those  who  were  led  into  the  excesses 
of  Zwickau  and  Muenster,  and  the  sober  party  who 
abhorred  those  extremes  and  abode  by  the  good 
way  of  the  scriptural  church  order.  (3)  We  must 
notice  the  Dutch  Anabaptists  under  the  wise  leader- 
ship of  Menno  Simons,  and  called  Mennonites  from 
him.  These  good  folk  rejected  the  fanatical  doings 
of  a  part  of  their  German  brethren,  and  were  con- 
tent to  be  governed  by  the  simple  polity  of  the  New 
*  Cf.  Newman's  History  of  A nti-paetobaptirim,  passim. 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        155 

Testament.  (4)  We  should  observe  the  English 
Anabaptists.  Before  the  Keformation  Wiclif  and 
his  followers  held  many  sound  scriptural  views,  in- 
cluding those  of  the  composition  and  government  of 
the  churches;  but  they  were  probably  hindered  by 
persecution  from  giving  effect  to  their  opinions  in 
any  openly  organized  Avay.  At  any  rate,  the  Ee- 
formation  brought  to  light  the  existence  of  sectaries 
in  England  who  were  like  their  brethren  on  the 
Continent,  and  were  called  Anabaptists,  and  as 
such  were  persecuted  by  both  Catholics  and 
Protestants. 

In  general  it  appears  that  some  of  these  Anabap- 
tists were  like  the  modern  Baptists,  and  some  were 
not;  for  they  were  not  in  all  details  like  each  other. 
They  were  alike  in  opposing  infant  baptism,  but 
not  all  of  them  practised  immersion.  Their  polity 
so  far  as  appears  was  generally  congregational, 
though  no  doubt  some  vagaries  existed  among  them. 
They  adhered  to  the  Scripture  as  their  only  rule  of 
faith,  and  formed  their  churches  with  elders,  pastors 
and  preachers  as  leaders,  and  with  deacons  as  lay 
officers.  They  recognized  no  hierarchy  of  themselves 
or  others;  each  congregation  ruled  itself,  subject  to 
the  supreme  headship  of  Christ,  and  yet  they  had 
relations  with  each  other.  How  much  of  actual  con- 
tact and  sympathy  there  was  between  these  sects, 
it  is  difiicult  to  say.  But  it  is  not  improbable  that 
they  had  relations  with  each  other  in  different  parts 
of  the  Continent  and  in  England. 

^Ve  turn  now  to  consider  the  Baptist  churches 
since  the  Keformation  period  doAAu  to  our  own 
times.     This   is   the   most   flourishing  and   fruitful 


156  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

period  in  the  growth  of  the  Baptists  and  in  the 
spread  of  their  principles.  These  principles,  includ- 
ing those  of  church  government,  became  during  this 
period  firmly  fixed  and  fairly  well  understood,  both 
hj  themselves  and  others.  The  sufferings  and 
triumphs  of  the  Baptists  in  the  advocacy  of  their 
principles,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  are  mat- 
ters of  glorious  history.  Not  much  is  known  of  the 
persecuted  and  diminishing  Baptists  on  the  Con- 
tinent of  Europe  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  period, 
and  their  revival  and  progress  in  our  own  time  do 
not  offer  much  that  is  distinctive  in  the  matter  of 
church  polity.  We  are,  therefore,  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  Baptists  of  England  and  America. 

Taking  a  view  of  the  English  Baptists,  we  find 
that  in  the  year  1611,  the  memorable  year  of  the 
publication  of  King  James'  Version  of  the  Bible,  a 
church  in  London  set  forth  a  declaration  of  prin- 
ciples in  which  the  scriptural  organization  of  the 
churches  is  distinctly  aflirmed.  In  1644  seven  Bap- 
tist churches  in  and  near  London  united  in  a  con- 
fession of  faith  in  which  the  true  scriptural  doctrine 
of  the  church  finds  unmistakable  expression.  In 
1653  and  several  following  years  various  organiza- 
tions arose  among  the  General,  or  Arminian,  Bap- 
tists. These  bodies,  however,  tampered  too  much 
with  the  independency  of  the  churches.  In  1689, 
the  year  of  the  Act  of  Toleration  under  William  and 
Mary,  occurred  a  memorable  event  in  Baptist  his- 
tory. It  was  the  adoption,  with  changes  suited  to 
Baptist  views,  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  In  the  preamble  of  this  famous  declara- 
tion   of   principles    occurs    the    following    interest- 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        157 

ing  laugnage:  "The  niiuisters  and  messengers  of, 
and  concerned  for,  upwards  of  one  hundred  bap- 
tized churches  in  Enghind  and  Wales  denying 
Arniinianism,  etc."  Several  points  of  this  descrip- 
tion are  worthy  of  special  notice.  One  is  the  great 
increase  in  churches.  In  1611  it  was  one,  in  1644 
it  was  seven  churches  near  London,  and  in  1689  it 
is  upwards  of  one  hundred  in  England  and  Wales. 
Another  point  is  the  carefulness  with  which  they 
explain  that  they  are  both  ministers  and  messengers, 
and  while  not  all  of  the  churches  are  personally 
represented,  they  are  authoritatively  so;  for  these 
ministers  and  messengers  are  "concerned  for"'  those 
who  have  not  actual  representatives  present — which 
may  be  taken  to  mean  that  they  were  authorized  to 
represent  the  absent.  The  title  which  they  give 
themselves  is  of  remarkable  interest.  This  is  not 
Baptist,  nor  Anabaptist,  but  "baptized  churches." 
They  had  been  called  Anabaptists  as  a  term  of  re- 
proach, and  this  term  they  always  resented,  in- 
sisting that  they  did  not  rehaptke,  that  the  cere- 
mony performed  upon  infants  was  not  baptism,  but 
that  performed  on  believers  was  in  reality  the  only 
baptism  they  had  received.  They,  therefore,  with 
great  logical  consistency,  resented  being  called  Ana- 
baptists, or  re-baptizers.  But  conceiving  that  they 
had  the  proper  mode  of  being  baptized,  the}^  took 
to  themselves  the  name  of  "baptized  churches,-'  from 
which  the  expression  "Baptist"'  is  easih*  drawn. 
Another  point  of  interest  in  the  language  above 
quoted  is  the  clause  which  expressly  stated  that 
they  denied  Arniinianism.  This  declaration  of  1689 
was    the    basis    of    the    Philadelphia    Confession 


158  POLITY  OF  THE   CHT'RCHES. 

adopted  in  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  has  thus  come  to  be  the  standard  of  the  largest 
number  of  Baptists,  both  in  England  and  America. 

During  the  eighteenth  century  there  does  not  seem 
to  have  occurred  among  the  English  Baptists  any- 
thing of  special  interest  as  to  church  order,  unless 
it  was  the  formation  of  the  associations.  During 
this  time  the  Baptists  of  Wales  increased  greatly. 
They  formed  associations  and  held  all  the  accepted 
Baptist  doctrines  as  to  church  polity  and  the  ordi- 
nances. In  1789,  one  hundred  years  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Carey  preached  his 
famous  sermon  at  the  Northampton  Association, 
which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  Baptist  Mis- 
sionary Society  for  evangelizing  the  heathen.  Be- 
sides this  historic  society,  which  still  exists  and 
labors,  there  have  arisen  various  other  co-operative 
bodies  in  England  which  held  the  churches  together. 

Let  us  observe  now  the  progress  of  Baptist  church 
order  in  America.  As  to  the  officers  of  the  churches 
there  are  some  items  of  interest.  Among  the  earlier 
Baptist  churches  of  this  country  we  sometimes  find 
four  sets  of  officers,  viz.,  pastors,  teachers,  elders 
and  deacons.  As  to  the  office  of  deacon  little  need 
be  said,  as  it  has  been  substantially  the  same  in  all 
Baptist  history,  except  that  its  modern  tendency 
has  been  to  encroach  upon  and  absorb  that  of  the 
lay  eldership.  As  to  the  eldership  we  may  note 
that  the  title  was  always  inclusive  of  the  pastor 
even  up  to  a  very  recent  date.  But  in  some  of  the 
earlier  churches  there  were  ruling  elders  between 
the  pastor  and  the  deacons.  But  this  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  general,  aiid  gradually  the  functions 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        159 

of  the  non-preaching  elders,  have  been  combined 
with  those  of  the  deacons.  But  there  seem  to  have 
been  teaching  elders  also,  not  strictly  pastors,  and 
perhaps  not  regular  preachers,  who  yet  exhorted, 
and  possibly  administered  the  ordinances.  Some- 
times there  was  more  than  one  pastor,  and  the  as- 
sistant w^as  often  called  ^'teacher."  The  New  Testa- 
ment term  bishop  was  wholly  discarded,  probably 
because  of  its  association  with  prelacy.  Many  of 
the  preachers  were  in  fact,  if  not  in  name,  evange- 
lists, but  the  terms,  pastor,  preacher,  minister,  have 
gradually  taken  the  field.  As  to  the  origin  of  the 
extra-scriptural  officers  of  clerk,  treasurer,  trustees 
and  the  like,  nothing  definite  is  known.  The  most 
curious  thing  in  the  history  of  this  subject  is  the 
attempt  of  the  Virginia  General  Association  of 
Separate  Baptists  (a  body  which  must  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  present  General  Association 
which  came  into  being  later)  in  1774  to  revive  the 
office  of  apostle,  to  which  Samuel  Harriss  was 
solemnly  elected  and  ordained.*  But  the  brethren 
soon  became  convinced  that  this  office  was  not  alto- 
gether scriptural  or  expedient,  and  it  was  allowed 
to  lapse.  Gradually  things  settled  down  to  the 
present  arrangement — one  pastor,  with  the  deacons, 
and  with  such  other  officers  as  the  needs  of  the 
churches  required. 

The  independency  of  the  churches  has  ever  been 
a  marked  and  steadfast  Baptist  principle.  Not 
only  the  confessions  of  faith  but  the  almost  uniform 
traditional   practice   of   Baptists   is   clear   on    this 

*  Cf.  Semple's  History  of  the  Virginia  Baptists,  Beale's 
edition,  pp.  80,81. 


160  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

point.  A  few  departures,  or  attempted  departures, 
here  and  there  only  emphasize  it  the  more.  The 
earlier  churches  were  no  doubt  informalh'  organized 
bodies  of  baptized  believers.  They  claimed  the  right 
of  Christians  to  think  for  themselves,  to  organize 
in  church  relation  according  to  the  Bible,  and  to 
call  themselves  churches  of  Christ.  Where  there 
was  diversity  of  doctrine,  division  of  organization 
was  alloAved  in  the  spirit  of  fairness.  Any  encroach- 
ment on  this  independency  of  the  churches  has  been 
jealously  resented  and  most  carefully  guarded 
against.  In  respect  to  the  correspondence  and  co- 
operation of  the  churches  there  have  been  some  in- 
teresting developments.  The  intimate  and  neces- 
sary relations  of  '"churches  of  the  same  faith  and 
order"  early  became  apparent.  Doctrinal  agree- 
ment, similar  sufferings,  common  needs  and  perils, 
fraternal  intercourse,  traveling  preachers,  minis- 
terial interchanges  and  general  sympathy  all  united 
to  foster  and  develop  correspondence  and  co-opera- 
tion among  Baptist  churches  that  were  near  each 
other,  and  thence  gradually  among  the  more  remote. 
The  Six  Principle  Baptists  of  New  England  early' 
in  their  history  had  a  ''Yearly  Meeting,"  mostly  for 
social  and  religious  intercourse.  In  1707  the  now 
venerable  Philadelphia  Association  was  organized 
and  speedily  became  a  tower  of  strength  to  the 
Baptists  of  the  whole  land.  In  1751  the  Charleston 
Association  in  South  Carolina  was  organized;  then 
in  1767  came  the  Warren  Association  in  New  Eng- 
land, and  from  these  and  others  have  been  derived 
a  glorious  company  of  daughters  throughout  the 
country.    These  bodies  have  become  a  standing  and 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.  161 

significant  Baptist  institution.  At  first  tliey  iri- 
chKled  a  great  extent  of  territory  and  churches 
widely  separated,  and  thus  thev  occupied  the  place 
of  the  more  general  bodies  of  later  times.  In  tlie 
develrtpiiient  of  the  country,  and  of  the  cliurche;S, 
more  associations  were  formed  I5y  subdivision,  and 
this  left  the  field  open  for  the  organization  of  larger 
bodies,  as  will  be  presently  noticed.  Councils  and 
conferences  for  special  purposes  have  also  been, 
from  the  earlier  times,  parts  of  the  denominational 
working. 

The  history  of  the  general  bodies  is  also  note- 
worthy. The  Separates  of  Virginia,  before  their 
union  with  the  Regulars,  had  a  General  Association, 
composed  of  many  churches,  but  not  of  all  in  that 
Commonwealth.  After  the  division  of  this  general 
body  into  district  associations,  from  which  the 
name  of  "district  associations'"  has  been  per- 
petuated, a  General  Committee  was  formed  es- 
pecially to  guard  the  interests  of  the  Baptists  and 
to  fight  for  liberty  of  conscience  in  the  Old 
Dominion.  But  this  noble  and  ever  memorable  body 
served  its  purpose.  Having  accomplished  the  secur- 
ing of  religious  liberty  in  Virginia,  and  the  enact- 
ment of  the  first  amendment  to  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution, guaranteeing  religious  freedom,  it  was  left 
with  nothing  to  do,  and  so  passed  out  of  existence. 
There  was  a  blank  of  some  years  before  the  present 
General  Association  of  the  Baptists  of  Virginia  was 
formed.  The  Baptists  in  Georgia  in  imitation  of 
their  brethren  in  Virginia  also  tried  a  General  Com- 
mittee, but  the  same  reason  for  its  existence  did  not 
prevail  in  Georgia  as  in  Virginia.     It  had  some  oj)- 


162  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

position  and  did  not  accomplish  much,  except  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  Georgia  State  Convention 
of  later  times.  The  earliest  State  organization  of 
Baptists  was  the  Massachusetts  Domestic  Mis- 
sionary Society  formed  in  1802,  but  it  extended  its 
work  beyond  the  State  limits  and  was  thus  a  pioneer 
in  time  but  not  exactly  in  plan  of  the  later  State 
organizations.  Meanwhile  the  conversion  of  Judson 
and  Rice  to  Baptist  views  in  far-off  India,  whither 
they  had  gone  as  missionaries  of  the  American  Board 
of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  (Congrega- 
tional), came  as  a  call  to  the  Baptists  of  the  United 
States  to  organize  for  foreign  mission  work.  The 
call  was  heard  and  heeded.  On  May  18th,  1814,  in 
Philadelphia  (most  suitable  place)  thirty-three  dele- 
gates, representing  the  Baptists  of  eleven  States, 
met  and  organized  The  Missionary  Convention  of 
the  Baptist  Denomination  in  the  United  States  of 
America  for  Foreign  Missions.  This  body  met  every 
three  years,  and  was,  therefore,  called  the  Triennial 
Convention.  In  the  interim  of  its  meetings  affairs 
were  managed  by  a  committee  or  board.  It  lasted 
until  1845  when  the  Baptists  of  the  North  and 
South  divided  on  the  slavery  question,  and  the 
American  Baptist  Missionary  Union  and  the  South- 
ern Baptist  Convention  were  organized  in  the  re- 
spective sections. 

The  founding  of  the  Triennial  Convention  led  to 
other  organizations  and  especiall}^  stimulated  the 
formation  of  the  State  Conventions  to  draw  to- 
gether the  Baptists  of  the  several  States  to  work 
for  Home  and  Foreign  Missions  and  education,  es- 
pecially   the    education    of    the    ministry.     Massa- 


PROGRESS  OF  BAPTIST  PRINCIPLES.        163 

chiisetts,  as  we  have  already  seen,  had  organized  in 
1802;  South  Carolina  followed  in  1821;  Georgia,  in 
1822;  Connecticut,  Virginia  and  Alabama,  in  1823; 
Maine,  in  1824;  New  York  and  Vermont,  in  1825; 
New  Hampshire,  in  1826;  Pennsylvania,  in  1827, 
and  the  others  later.  The  reason  why  Pennsylvania 
was  comparatively  slow  in  organizing  a  general  con- 
vention is  perhaps  that  the  Philadelphia  Association 
was  such  a  large  and  powerful  body  that  it  long 
rendered  unnecessar}-  the  organization  of  a  State 
Convention. 

All  these  bodies,  from  the  association  up,  are 
simply  voluntary  and  co-operative,  with  no  control 
whatever  over  the  local  churches.  This  point  has 
been  most  jealously  guarded  in  their  constitutions, 
and  for  the  most  part  in  their  practice.  The  basis 
of  representation  in  these  bodies  is  various.  In  the 
missionary  conventions  it  has  been  almost  always 
financial,  that  is,  churches,  or  societies,  sometimes 
even  individuals,  have  been  accorded  seats  in  pro- 
portion to  the  amount  of  money  contributed  to  carry 
on  missionary  operations.  In  the  associations  the 
basis  has  nearly  always  been  numerical,  the  dif- 
ferent churches  represented  in  the  body  being  en- 
titled to  membership  according  to  the  number  of 
members  in  the  churches.  And  then  there  has  been 
some  mixture  of  methods.  In  the  Southern  Baptist 
Convention,  besides  the  financial  basis,  each  associa- 
tion within  the  teritory  has  been  entitled  to  elect 
one  representative.  In  the  Societies  in  the  North 
the  system  of  life  membership  was  adopted,  that  is, 
by  the  payment  of  a  certain  amount  a  person  will 
be  entitled  to  membership  as  long  as  he  lives. 


164  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

The  seitaratiou  of  cluircli  and  state  has  beeu  a 
caidiiial  i>iiiici}>le  of  the  Baptists  and  of  their  simi- 
lars in  all  ages.  The  few  trivial  exceptions,  and 
tliere  have  been  some  all  along,  only  prove  the  rule. 
In  our  country  Massachusetts  and  Virginia  were 
the  special  battlegrounds  of  this  great  principle; 
and  it  was  fitting  that  in  those  two  oldest  common- 
wealths of  our  country  this  prime  conflict  should 
have  beeu  fought  to  its  triumphant  conclusion.  The 
"Standing  Order,"  as  the  State  Church  was  called 
in  ^lassachusetts,  ])ersecuted  and  exiled  Roger  Wil- 
liams and  his  sympathizers.  The  l>aj)tists  of  New 
England  suffered  and  fought  long  and  well.  The 
Warren  Association  and  Isaac  Backus  were  in  the 
forefront.  Yet,  it  was  not  until  1833  that  the  la^t 
vestige  of  State  control  of  the  churches  was  sw^pt 
from  the  laws  of  Massachusetts.  In  A^irgiuia  also 
the  battle  was  fought,  and  more  speedily  won.  Here 
the  Episco]»al  Church  was  established  by  law,  all 
citizens  were  taxed  for  its  support,  and  other  modes 
of  worship  were  made  illegal,  and  tolerated  only  by 
special  license.  Ba]»tists  refused  to  apply  for 
license;  and  holding  that  the  state  had  no  right  to 
grant  or  refuse  permission  to  worship  God,  pro- 
ceeded to  do  so  in  their  own  way.  As  a  consequence 
they  were  fined,  imprisoned,  whipped  and  perse- 
cuted in  other  ways,  but  they  won  the  day.  In  1787, 
by  their  efforts,  powerfully  aided  by  Madison  and 
Jefferson,  the  General  Assessment  Bill  was  defeated 
in  the  Virginia  Legislature;  and  in  1789  by  the  same 
influences  the  first  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution was  adopted.  This  has  finally  settled  the 
question  of  state  churches  in  this  country. 


CONFORM  ITY  TO  XEW  TESTAMENT.  165 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  X. 

BAPTIST  COXFORiMlTY  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

I.  How  far  is  the  c-onfoimity  real? 

I.  Resemblances. 

(1)  Character  of  the  membership. 

(2)  Self-government. 

(3)  Independency. 

(4)  Officers. 
2.  Differences. 

(1)  Things  omitted. 

(2)  Things  added. 

II.  Why  maintain  conformity? 

1.  The  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith. 

2.  Apostolic  precedent. 

3.  This  polity  more  accordant  with  other  Chris- 

tian principles. 

4.  Departures  have  been  evil  rather  than  good. 

5.  Best  polity  in  itself. 

Til.  How  explain  and  justify  divergencies? 

1.  Some  unavoidable. 

2.  Some  desirable  ;  but — 

3.  Some  doubtful ;  and — 

4.  Some  harmful. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  OF  TODAY. 

THEIR     CONFORMITY     TO     THE      MODEL     OF     THE      NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

Having  considered  the  polity  of  the  New  Te5;ta- 
raent  churches,  and  the  deviations  from  that  form 
of  government  which  have  arisen  in  the  progress  of 
Christian  history,  and  having  traced  the  progress  of 
Baptist  principles  in  many  lands  and  ages,  we  come 
now  to  compare  the  Baptist  churches  of  to-day  with 
the  scriptural  model.  In  what  respects  they  re- 
semble the  apostolic  churches,  and  how  they  differ 
from  them,  and  the  reasons,  respectively,  for  these 
resemblances  and  differences,  we  are  now  to  con- 
sider. The  main  points  of  the  New  Testament 
polity,  as  they  were  brought  out  in  the  beginning 
of  this  discussion,  are  these:  societies  composed  of 
baptized  believers  in  Christ,  independent  of  each 
other  in  government,  but  having  many  common  in- 
terests and  important  relations,  self-governed,  yet 
with  officers  for  the  general  direction  and  manage- 
ment of  affairs.  These  officers  were  regularly  of  two 
kinds,  elders  and  deacons,  the  former  of  whom  are 
also  called  bishops  and  pastors.  On  a  candid  study 
of  the  New  Testament  only,  with  what  reflected  lights 
could  be  had  from  other  sources,  we  reached  the 
conclusion  that  these  were  the  main  elements  of  the 

166 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.  167 

New  Testament  polity.  The  question  for  us  now  is, 
Are  these  elements  of  church  government  repro- 
duced in  the  Baptist  churches  of  to-day?  If  they 
are,  why  are  Baptists  so  careful  to  reproduce  these 
outlines  of  church  organization  as  exemplified  in  the 
New  Testament  Christian  bodies?  and  if  the  Bap- 
tists, with  a  sincere  desire  to  reproduce  the  polity 
of  the  New  Testament  churches,  fail  in  some  measure 
so  to  do,  what  are  the  reasons  for  such  falling  short? 
These  are  the  principal  questions  which  will  oc- 
cupy us  in  the  present  chapter. 

Of  these  inquiries,  the  first  to  which  we  need  to 
give  attention  is.  How  far  is  there  among  the  Bap- 
tist churches  of  to-day  a  real  conformity  to  the  New 
Testament  model?  It  is  the  avowed,  honest  pur- 
pose of  the  Baptist  people  to  reproduce  in  their 
churches,  as  far  as  is  possible  and  obligatory,  the 
form  of  church  organization  and  government  which 
prevailed  among  churches  founded  by  the  Apostles. 
To  what  extent  they  succeed  or  fail  is  a  simple  ques- 
tion of  fact  and  observation.  We  may  easily  trace 
the  principal  points  of  resemblance  and  of  dif- 
ference. It  is  apparent  from  the  summary  state- 
ment just  made  that  there  is  a  striking,  and  even 
essential  resemblance  between  the  Baptist  churches 
of  to-day  and  the  churches  of  apostolic  times. 

In  the  matter  of  membership  there  is  evident 
similarity.  In  the  New  Testament  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  any  being  members  of  churches  except  such 
as  were  considered  to  be  truly  regenerated  believers 
and  had  actually  submitted  to  the  rite  of  baptism. 
Now  the  Baptist  churches  insist  as  one  of  their 
fundamental  principles  that  only  truly  regenerated 


I;(j8  ,POLIT>:  OF,  THE   ("HURCHES, 

believers  in  Christ,  afte;r  having  been  pvQperly  bap- 
tized on  ])rofessiou  of  their  faith  in  the  Lord,  should 
be.  received  as  members  of  the  clnirch.  Th^re  is 
sqiiie  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  method  of  a 
^jtjiitpment  of  Christian  experience  from  applicants 
fQi^<  membership,  and  of  course  mistakes  a.re  some- 
times made;  but  in  the  niain,  and  to  the  extent  of 
hpmau  knowledge.  Baptist  churches  earnestly  adhere 
to  this  as  one  of  their  fundamental  principles,  yi^., 
a,  ,coiiverted  and  baptized  membership. 

Again,  in  the  matter  of  self-government,  there  is 
^  very  clear  case  of  similarity.  There  is  no  trace  in 
tl^!  Ke>y  Testament  of  any  higher  governipg,  body 
imiking  laws  or  rules  for  the  independent  churches 
of  the  Lord.  It  is  also,  a  marked  characteristic  of 
^ifptists  in  our  own  day  that  each  one  of  thieii' 
cluirches  shall  be  a  selfgoverning  unit.  Each  church 
j^ifielf,  by  a  majority  vote,  determines  its  own. action 
in  all  cases.  There  is  naturally  difference  of  custom 
as,  to  ii  quorum,  as  each  church  has  its  own  constitu- 
tion and  rules  of  order.  Nor  is  there  absolute  uni- 
formity of  practice  in  regard  to  the  voters.  In  some 
churches  neither  women  nor  nuuors  have  a  vote, 
and  perhaps  in  a  large  nund)er  the  younger  mem- 
bers are  not  expected  to  vote  on  questions  of 
ini})ortance,  though  there  may  not  be  any  rule  on 
this  point.  It  is  true,  also,  that  in  very  many  of 
the  churches,  perhaps  with  regret  we  might  say  a 
majority  of  them,  the  larger  part  of  the  members 
do  not  attend  the  business  meetings,  and  it  is  prac- 
tically a  fraction  of  the  church  Avhich  regulates  its 
business  concerns.  But  the  theory  ujton  which  the 
churches  proceed   is,   that  all   the   members  of  the 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TF:STA:klENT.  ,1'69 

ohuTch.  assembled  in  business,  meeting;,  shall  b.v  a 
majority  vote  determine  the  action  of  the  body. 
This  action  includes  a  number  of  things,  suck  as  the 
reception  of  members  and  the  decision  of  all  diffi- 
cult cases  connected  with  that.im])ortant  function, 
the  discipline  of  members,  election  of  officers,  ad- 
ministration of  all  business  affairs,  regulation  of 
worship,  adoption  of  doctrinal  views,  and,  in  fact, 
all  things  connected  with  church  order  and  church 
life. 

Another  well-defined  element  in  Baptist  chureli 
life  is  that  of  independency.  In  all  their  history 
the  Baptist  churches  have  been  very  jealous  of  their 
independence.  It  may  be  granted  that  sometimels 
^hey  may  have  erred  in  a.^serting  this  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  general  interests  of  the  denomination, 
but  certainly  the  theory  is  valid,  even  if  practice 
has  sometimes  been  unreasonable.  Baptist  churches 
recognize  no  earthly  authority  above  that  of  the 
local  church.  They  bow  to  no  hierarchy,  they  elect 
no  representative  or  judicial  body  over  themselves, 
they  repudiate  all  such  control  in  religious  matters; 
yet  there  is  a  denominational  life  and  unity.  The 
churches  recognize  each  other  as  churches  of  a  com- 
mon Lord  and  Master.  They  unite  for  common 
work,  they  rejoice  in  common  principles,  they 
observe  to  a  large  extent  a  common  standard  of 
life,  doctrine  and  customs.  Their  unity  in  inde- 
pendency is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  j»henomena 
of  their  history.  And  though  often  ])ut  to  severe 
strain,  this  unity  is  in  the  main  ])robably  as  well 
preserved  as  that  of  other  bodies  in  which  there  is 
more  apparent  and  external  unity. 


170  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Still  another  point  of  similarity  between  Baptist 
churches  and  those  of  the  New  Testament  lies  in 
the  important  matter  of  the  church  officers.  The 
Baptist  churches  retain  the  two  scriptural  officers, 
elder  (or  pastor)  and  deacon.  The  pastor  is  es- 
pecially charged  with  the  spiritual  concerns  of  the 
church, — the  preaching,  the  conduct  of  worship,  the 
spiritual  oversight  of  the  members,  the  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinances,  and  all  matters  pertaining 
to  these.  The  deacons  look  after  the  temporal  af- 
fairs of  the  church,  assist  the  pastor  in  many  ways, 
and  are  especially  charged  with  the  care  of  the  poor. 
The  churches  recognize  these  officers  as  executive 
only.  The  seat  of  authority  is  in  the  church,  and  to 
the  church  all  its  officers  are  directly  responsible. 

Any  candid  observer  will  surely  see  that  the  re- 
semblances pointed  out  are  not  fanciful  nor  over- 
strained. They  are  striking  and  important,  and  if 
not  exact  in  all  details,  they  clearly  are  so  in  funda- 
mental principles.  It  is  true,  however,  that  there 
are  differences  between  the  Baptist  churches  of  to- 
day and  the  bodies  of  Christian  believers  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament.  Some  things  practised  by 
the  apostolic  churches  are  not  found  among  the 
Baptists;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  some  things 
have  been  added  to  the  Baptist  church  order  of 
modern  times  which  we  do  not  iiud  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  right  that  we  should  give  a  candid 
consideration  to  these  points  of  difference. 

We  will  notice  first  some  things  omitted.  There 
are  some  matters  of  custom  which  are  not  repro- 
duced ,  such  as  the  weekly  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  possibly  other  church  actions,  as  well 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.  17I 

as  many  social  customs.  The  supernatural  gifts 
which  were  granted  to  the  churches  of  the  New 
Testament  Baptists  do  not  of  course  attempt  to  re- 
produce, such  as  the  gift  of  prophecy,  together  with 
the  order  of  prophets,  the  gift  of  tongues,  of  healings 
and  the  like.  Some  bodies  of  Christians  here  and 
there  have  tried  to  reproduce  all  these  in  their 
churches,  but  not  particularly  the  Baptists. 

In  regard  to  the  general  officers  among  the- 
churches,  we  must  also  note  some  differences.  Bap- 
tists have  no  apostles.  It  is  true,  as  elsewhere  men- 
tioned, that  the  General  Association  of  the  Separate 
Baptists  in  Virginia  did  in  the  year  1774  appoint 
Samuel  Harriss  to  be  an  apostle,  but  this  office  was 
of  short  duration,  and  was  never  recognized  by  any 
other  body  of  Baptists.  Tlier^  are  no  prophets,  in 
the  scriptural  sense  of  that  word.  Evangelists  and 
teachers  are  recognized,  but  not  in  the  same  sense 
as  in  the  apostolic  churches.  Baptist  churches  have 
discarded  the  plurality  of  elders.  It  is  the  custom 
now,  even  in  the  very  large  churches,  to  have  only 
one  active  pastor,  or  elder,  while  it  seems  clear  that 
in  the  New  Testament  churches,  certainly  the  larger 
ones,  there  were  several  or  even  many  elders.  Nor 
do  many  churches  recognize  the  office  of  deaconess, 
though  there  ma}'  be  some  intimation  that  such  an 
office  existed  in  the  New  Testament  churches.  It 
may  be  that  in  the  matters  of  the  support  of  the 
elders,  and  of  the  authority  exercised  by  them,  there 
are  also  differences.  These  seem  to  be  the  principal 
things  in  which  Baptist  churches  to-day  fall  short 
by  way  of  omission  when  compared  with  the 
churches  of  the  New  Testament.    What  mav  be  said 


172  POLITY   OF  THE   CHTRCHES. 

in  justification  of  the.-ie  omissions  will  appear  later; 
but  let  us  not  fail  to  observe  that  as  compared  with 
the  resemblances  before  pointed  out  these  diUferences 
are  few  and  not  vital. 

When  we  come  to  things  which  have  been  added 
to  the  modern  churches,  things  which  had  no  ex- 
istence, so  far  as  the  records  go,  i,i  the  apostolic 
churches,  the  differences  are  much  greater  than  in 
case  of  the  omissions.  In  the  local  churches  the 
additions  are  considerable.  Among  these  are  to  be 
found  additional  officers.  Every  well  organized 
church  nowadays  must  have  a  clerk,  treasurer,  trus- 
tees and  various  committees  for  the  proper  regula- 
tion of  its  business  affairs.  Then  there  are  many 
customs  prevalent  in  the  modern  churches  of  which 
we  can  find  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament,  such 
as  Sunday-schools,  various  societies  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  church  composed  of  different  groups  of 
the  membership,  and  other  things  of  like  nature. 
Then  there  are  some  matters  of  church  order,  such 
as  the  adoption  by  many  churches  of  a  creed,  or 
declaration  of  principles,  and  a  covenant,  with 
many  other  details  too  numerous  to  mention. 

In  the  relations  of  the  churches  to  each  other, 
many  things  have  been  added.  All  the  general 
bodies  of  the  denomination,  from  associations  up  to 
conventions,  all  sorts  of  meetings,  special  or  stated, 
all  the  general  committees,  or  presbyteries,  or  coun- 
cils, and  other  expedients  for  maintaining  different 
parts  of  the  denominational  life,  find  no  visible 
analogue  in  the  New  Testament  churches.  In  the 
general  religious  and  denominational  life  of  our 
times   there   are   many   institutions   which   had   no 


COXFOU.MITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.  1  T3 

existence  in  the  apostolic  age.  Here  belong  all  our 
colleges  and  seminaries,  our  charitable  institutions, 
our  well  organized  and  eqniiiped  missionary  and 
publication  agencies.  While  many  of  these  institu- 
tions are  of  great  im])ortance  in  themselves,  and 
make  modern  churches  seem  very  different  from 
those  of  the  apostolic  age,  they  do  not  de])art  from, 
nor  destroy,  the  essential  [ninciples  of  church  jtolity 
as  outlined  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  next  important  question  is,  Why  do  the  Bap- 
tists endeavor  to  maintain  conformity  to  the  Xew 
Testament  model?  It  is  admitted  that  there  is  no 
express  command,  as  in  the  case  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  making  the  form  of  church  govern- 
ment perpetual.  We  cannot  point  to  a  distinct  and 
emphatic  injunction  of  either  our  Lord  or  his 
Apostles  on  this  subject.  To  many  this  has  seemed 
sufficient  reason  for  de|»arting  as  far  as  may  seem 
expedient,  even  from  the  clear  practice  of  the  XeAV 
Testament  churches,  but  to  Baptists  it  seems  far 
otherwise;  for  neitlier  is  there  any  authority,  ex- 
press or  implied,  which  makes  church  government 
a  matter  of  inditference,  or  sanctions  departure 
from  the  New  Testament  model.  The  reasons  for 
the  Baptist  position  may  be  very  simply  unfolded. 

The  general  argument  between  Protestants  and 
Catholics,  between  evangelicals  and  rationalists, 
that  the  Scriptures  fairly  interpreted  and  intelli- 
gently applied  to  the  different  conditions  of  our 
modern  life  are  the  only  sufficient  rule  of  faith  and 
I)ractice  in  regard  to  matters  of  religion,  is  the  one 
fundamental  and  all-embracing  reason  why  the  Bap- 
tists conscientiously  prefer  to  maintain  as  far  as 


174  POLITY   OF  THE  CHfRCHES. 

they  can  the  form  of  government  exemplified  in  the 
^ew  Testament  church.  Baptists  maintain  that 
apostolic  custom,  even  without  a  definite  command, 
is  a  precedent  of  the  utmost  value.  If  they  be  re- 
quired to  show  cause  why  they  follow  this  prece- 
dent, then  must  those  who  deviate  from  the  practice 
-of  the  Apostles  give  stronger  reason  for  their  course. 

Again,  the  Baptist  form  of  church  government  is 
more  accordant  with  the  general  principles  and 
practices  of  the  Christian  religion  than  are  the 
opposing  theories.  Xotice  some  particulars,  such 
as  the  supreme  headship  of  Christ,  the  equality  of 
all  believers,  the  freedom  and  responsibility  of  the 
individual  Christian,  a  converted  church  member- 
ship, and  submission  to  the  state,  but  not  union 
with  it. 

Furthermore,  the  departures  written  in  history 
from  the  scriptural  mode  of  government  have  cer- 
tainly been  no  improvement  upon  it,  but  have  the 
rather  wrought  much  evil.  Observe  among  the  more 
noticeable  of  these  departures  the  fearful  errors 
■and  perversions  which  have  characterized  the  papacy 
throughout  its  marvelous  development.  Consider, 
too,  the  evils  of  state  churches,  and  notice  how, 
even  in  the  older  countries  where  such  institutions 
have  long  prevailed,  and  have  been  in  a  measure 
sanctified  by  the  dearest  associations,  there  is  a 
rising  tide  of  opposition  to  a  state-governed  church. 
We  should  also  not  fail  to  observe  that  even  among 
evangelical  Christians,  among  Ptedobaptist  denomi- 
nations in  our  free  country,  some  of  these  evils  have 
been  perpetuated  and  still  call  for  argument  and 
•correction. 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT,  l75 

lu  addition  to  all  this  the  advantages  of  the  Bap- 
tist mode  of  church  government  are  such  as  to  com- 
mend it  even  if  it  had  no  scriptural  basis.  Its 
practical  advantages  are  great.  These  put  it  into 
favorable  comparison  with  the  others.  If  in  some 
respects  it  does  not  work  well,  it  has  at  least  done 
as  well  as  any  other.  It  has  shown  its  power  to 
unite,  and  that  verj--  freely,  gi'eat  numbers  in  pur- 
suit of  a  common  end.  It  develops  the  local  church 
and  the  individual  member  quite  as  well  as  any 
other  system.  It  conserves  the  moral  and  doctrinal 
purity  both  of  the  ministry  and  of  the  separate  con- 
gregations just  as  well  as  any  other  mode  of  church 
government.  Baptists  have  had  their  troubles,  are 
having  them  now,  and  are  going  to  have  them  to 
the  end  of  time,  no  doubt.  But  upon  the  whole, 
with  their  theory  of  church  government,  they  have 
managed  their  difficulties  about  as  well  as  their 
brethren  of  other  denominations,  with  a  more 
cumbrous  and  clanking  ecclesiastical  machinery, 
have  been  able  to  manage  theirs. 

While  some  practical  difficulties  cannot  be  de- 
nied, the  theoretical  advantages  of  this  polity  are 
very  clear  and  striking.  If  all  the  people  in  a  com- 
mon region  or  country  were  actually  church  mem- 
bers, and  all  these  church  members  were  soundly 
converted  and  actively  at  work,  would  not  this  be 
for  them  a  supremely  good  mode  of  church  govern- 
ment? Would  there  be  need  of  any  other,  if  Chris- 
tians were  what  Christians  ought  to  be?  This  polity 
recognizes  and  encourages  the  highest  spiritual  at- 
tainments of  its  adherents  with  the  very  least  ap- 
peal to  ambition  and  other  worldlv  motives. 


176  POLl-TY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

Keeurring  noAV  to  the  admitted  fact,  that,,  not- 
withstanding their  efforts,  they  do  not  exactly  and 
in  all  ])oints  reproduce  the  model  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  question  arises,  How  do  the  Baptists  ex- 
l>lain  and  justify  their  departures  from  the  Xew 
Testament  model?  We  must  .<ay  that  among  these 
are  some  inevitable  differences  which  grow  out  of 
the  different  times.  To  reproduce  the  apostolic 
chur<h  in  every  j)articular  we  must  needs  reproduce 
the  life  of  the  a])ostoli('  age.  and  that  of  course  is  a 
sheer  im})Ossibility ;  nor  is  it  claimed  that  there 
should  be  exact  conformity  to  the  apostolic  church 
in  every  minute  detail.  We  may  further  admit  that 
it  is  hard  to  define  the  exact  points  of  allowable  de- 
parture from  apostolic  custom  in  these  matters. 
We  are  in  danger  of  omitting  some  things  that  ought 
to  be  kept  and  of  adding  some  things  that  should 
be  left  oft",  and  here  as  in  all  similar  cases  there 
must  ever  be  ditl'erence  of  opinion.  We  cannot  ex- 
pect to  have  perfect  agreement  even  among  Bap- 
tists themselves  upon  some  of  these  ])oints.  Jt  may 
be  permissible  to  classify  the  changes  observed,  as 
follows :  the  unavoidable,  the  desirable,  the  doubtful 
and  the  harmful.. 

Notice  then,  first,  Avhat  we  may  call  unavoidable 
changes.  No  doubt  the  apostles  practised  many 
things  which  have  not  been  preserved  for  us  in  the 
inspired  records.  We  do  not  know  how  they  acted 
as  regards  many  interesting  and  important  points 
connected  with  church  polity.  How  glad  we  would 
be,  for  instance,  if  we  knew  just  how  they  set  about 
organizing  a  church,  ordaining  a  minister,  and 
many  other  .such  things.     Again,  we  recognize  in 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.        177 

the  apostolic  churches  the  existence  of  many  things 
which  we  have  to  consider  as  extraordinary  and 
peculiar  to  that  age.  Here  should  be  placed  the 
apostolic  office,  the  miraculous  gifts  of  tongues, 
prophecy  and  healing.  These  existed  by  direct  divine 
appointment  and  not  by  church  authority.  If  ever 
in  the  good  providence  of  God  these  gifts  are  again 
bestowed  upon  the  churches,  together  with  such  un- 
doubted divine  credentials  as  to  disallow  every  trace 
of  fanaticism,  we  must  accept  them;  but  as  things 
are,  the  churches  have  no  more  right  now  than  they 
had  then  to  decree  and  appoint  these  manifestations 
of  divine  grace  and  power. 

In  addition  to  this,  we  must  observe  some  things 
that  were  peculiar  to  the  apostolic  age,  things  that 
cannot  be  reproduced  in  our  times;  and  correspond- 
ingly, there  are  some  things  peculiar  to  our  age  that 
could  not  have  been  anticipated  by  arrangements 
which  were  specially  adapted  to  those  times.  It  is 
freely  admitted  that  this  is  dangerous  ground,  and 
that  the  principle  here  stated  may  be  unduly 
pressed,  as  it  has  been  pressed,  in  the  interest  of 
clear  and  flagrant  departures  from  apostolic  teach- 
ing, yet  it  is  a  necessary  principle,  and  a  useful  one 
when  applied  with  suitable  caution.  It  is  to  be 
noticed,  too,  that  this  principle  applies  in  general 
to  matters  of  not  very  great  importance;  that  is, 
to  the  details  of  custom  rather  than  to  the  essentials 
of  organization  and  government. 

We  may  go  even  further  and  say  that  some  of 
the  changes  which  appear  in  the  Baptist  churches, 
as  compared  with  those  of  the  New  Testament,  are 
even  desirable.     Here  again,  we  must  proceed  with 


178  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

caution ;  for  this  principle,  too,  may  be  pressed  to 
harmful  extremes.  By  no  means  can  it  be  desirable 
to  change  anything  fundamental  in  the  apostolic 
constitution  of  churches.  The  principle  applies 
rather  to  the  things  which  have  been  added  in  order 
to  promote  the  practical  and  spiritual  efficiency  of 
the  churches;  for  example,  the  minor  offices  of  the 
church.  We  could  not  get  along  very  well  without 
clerks,  treasurers  and  trustees.  In  fact,  it  may 
reasonably  be  questioned  whether  these  officers  are 
additions.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  they,  or  similar 
ones,  had  place  in  the  apostolic  churches,  though 
there  is  no  record  to  that  effect.  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  in  regard  to  local  organizations,  such 
as  union  meetings,  associations,  and  the  like.  There 
is  no  word  in  the  New  Testament  regarding  an  as- 
sociation, and  yet  our  fathers  found  that  such  bodies 
were  exceedingly  desirable  in  promoting  the  spiri- 
tual and  other  interests  of  the  churches,  and  ap- 
parently without  hesitation  they  formed  these 
bodies.  And  w^hat  is  true  of  the  local  assemblies, 
or  district  bodies,  is  also  true  of  those  more  general 
organizations  which  have  been  devised  for  the 
furtherance  of  the  cause  of  Christ.  In  all  these 
matters  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  no  sense  do  these 
additions  to  apostolic  church  order  contravene  the 
principles  of  the  New  Testament.  In  general  it 
may  be  said  that  where  a  mode  of  working  is  not 
forbidden  by  Scripture  and  not  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, and  is  clearly  and  certainly  productive  of 
good,  it  may  be  safely  considered  a  desirable  in- 
novation. 

Besides  these  desirable  changes,  about  which  there 


(.'OXFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.  179 

is  not  likely  to  arise  much  question,  we  shall  have 
to  recognize  some  changes  that  are  of  doubtful 
propriety.  The  doubt  arises  partly  from  the  nature 
of  the  changes  themselves  as  to  whether  they  are 
agreeable  or  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment teaching;  and  partly  from  doubt  whether  in 
these  particular  cases  the  New  Testament  precedent 
is  to  be  regarded  as  binding.  A  number  of  things 
may  here  be  mentioned.  One  is,  that  there  seems 
to  have  been  in  the  apostolic  times  only  one  church 
organization  in  any  one  place,  or  town,  or  even  city. 
Some  think  that  now  there  should  be  only  one  Bap- 
tist church  in  a  large  city,  but  that  it  should  be 
divided  into  different  congregations  meeting  in  dif- 
ferent places  for  convenience  of  worship.  It  is  very 
likely  that  this  was  true  of  the  apostolic  churches, 
but  it  can  hardly  be  proved  to  have  been  always  the 
case ;  and  even  if  it  were,  we  could  scarcely  consider 
this  a  binding  precedent,  because  different  circum- 
stances from  those  which  prevailed  in  the  earlier 
days  might  make  it  expedient  to  adopt  a  changed 
method  now ;  that  is  to  say,  this  matter  would  fall 
under  the  head  of  things  left  discretionary  with  the 
churches. 

Another  matter  regards  the  plurality  of  elders 
in  the  apostolic  churches.  Reason  was  given  in  a 
former  part  of  this  work  for  thinking  that  the 
earliest  Christian  churches  were  under  the  care  of 
several,  and  perhaps  in  the  case  of  large  churches, 
even  of  many  elders.  Our  modern  practice  has  cer- 
tainly departed  from  this  usage  so  far  as  the 
authoritative  pastor  is  concerned.  Often  it  hap- 
I)ens  that  there  is  more  than  one  ordained  preacher 


180  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

in  a  church,  but  this  is  a  very  diifferent  thing  from 
the  plural  eldership  of  the  apostolic  churches. 
Sometimes  modern  churches  have  assistants  to  the 
pastor,  but  this  is  not  very  common.  Some  few  may 
have  an  order  of  elders,  who  do  not  preach,  but 
assist  the  pastor  in  attending  to  the  spiritual  con- 
cerns of  the  church,  leaving  the  deacons  to  look  after 
the  poor  and  the  finances.  This,  again,  is  probably 
different  from  the  apostolic  order.  The  question 
before  us  is  whether  there  should  be  a  plural  pastor- 
ship, the  several  pastors  being  of  equal  authority  in 
each  several  church.  Many  things  might  be  said 
theoretically  in  favor  of  this  plan.  If  there  were 
perfect  harmony  and  co-operation  between  these 
pastors,  such  an  arrangement  would  greatly  pro- 
mote the  efficiency  of  the  church.  It  would  enable 
the  pastors  to  perform  a  vast  deal  more  of  much 
needed  service  in  the  way  of  the  oversight  of  the 
flock.  The  great  difficulty,  however,  in  the  way  of 
establishing  this  arrangement  would  be  to  provide 
for  the  adequate  support  of  several  pastors.  Now, 
as  we  are  not  absolutely  sure  as  to  how  the  plural 
eldership  was  supported  or  organized,  in  the 
apostolic  churches,  and  as  it  is  likely  that  our 
churches  are  divided  up,  so  to  speak,  into  smaller 
branches,  which  are  ordinarily  not  too  large  to  be 
under  the  oversight  of  one  man,  it  does  not  seem 
necessary  to  consider  the  plural  eldership  as  a  per- 
manent apostolic  institution.  But  in  the  case  of 
our  unwieldy  city  churches  it  would  seem  very  de- 
sirable either  that  they  should  divide  yet  further, 
or  r-ecur  to  the  plural  eldership  of  the  earlier  times. 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.  181 

The  point  may  be  left  doubtful  as  belonging  under 
the  head  of  discretionary  matters. 

Another  question  is  as  to  the  order  of  deaconesses. 
Only  two  passages  of  Scripture  can  be  fairly  in- 
terpreted as  favoring  the  existence  of  such  officers 
in  the  apostolic  churches.  These  are  Rom.  16 :1  and 
1  Tim.  3 :  :11,  but  as  was  observed  in  the  discussion 
of  these  passages  in  a  former  chapter,  they  do  not 
certainly  teach  the  existence  of  deaconesses  in  those 
days.  We  should  say,  therefore,  that  this  custom 
is  not  clearly  enough  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  to 
be  obligatory  upon  the  churches  of  to-day,  yet,  there 
being  just  this  trace  of  authority  for  the  office,  there 
would  be  no  objection  to  establishing  it  should  it  be 
found  expedient  and  clearly  promotive  of  good. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  doubtful  additions 
that  have  been  made  to  the  apostolic  order,  the  case 
is  somewhat  different.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  many 
of  the  innovations  have  not  been  for  the  best.  All 
proposed  additions  to  the  organization  of  the  New 
Testament  church  should  be  very  carefully  scanned 
and  earnestly  considered  before  they  are  adopted. 

The  question  now  arises,  W^hether  there  are  in 
prevalent  Baptist  church  life  and  order  any  harm- 
ful innovations  upon  New  Testament  institutions? 
And  we  must  admit  that  there  appear  to  be  some. 
But  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  if  there  be  such 
harmful  changes  they  belong  rather  to  details  of 
arrangement  than  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
church  order,  and  are  matters  of  custom  rather  than 
of  constitution,  that  is,  pertaining  to  worship  and  to 
social  actions  rather  than  to  the  organization  of 
the   churches.      Moreover,   these   chanees   might   be 


182  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

more  justly  described  as  inconsistencies  rather  than 
as  avowed,  or  purposed  and  justified  departures 
from  the  apostolic  model. 

Here  we  must  mention  the  decay  of  corrective  dis- 
cipline. It  is  a  mournful  fact  that  in  many  churches 
to-day  apostolic  discipline  may  be  said  not  to  exist, 
and  some  few  apologists  for  this  state  of  things 
might  doubtless  appear;  but  surely  most  of  the 
churches  would  contend  in  theory,  if  they  do  not  in 
actual  practice,  for  a  pure  and  scriptural  church 
discipline. 

Another  innovation  which  appears  to  be  gaining 
ground  in  some  quarters  of  our  country,  and  for 
which  a  number  of  stout  advocates  have  taken  the 
field,  is  the  public  speaking  of  women.  The  main 
line  of  argument  by  which  it  is  sought  to  justify 
this  departure  from  apostolic  custom  is  two-fold. 
First,  that  the  apostolic  prohibition  of  women's 
speaking  in  public  was  simply  in  accordance  with 
the  habits  of  that  age  and  was  never  intended  to  be 
permanent ;  the  other  is,  that  the  undoubted  ex- 
istence of  female  prophets  in  the  apostolic  times 
shows  that  even  then  specially  qualified  women  did 
sometimes  address  public  assemblies.  To  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  modern  custom  these  two  lines  of 
thought  seem  satisfactory,  but  it  appears  that  the 
growth  of  custom  has  sought  for  the  arguments,  and 
the  arguments  did  not  cause  the  change.  To  most 
interpreters  the  clear  prohibition  of  women's  speak- 
ing found  in  1  Cor.  14:34  seems  sufficient  to  mark 
this  modern  innovation  as  contrary  to  the  purposes 
of  inspiration. 

Another  matter  which  needs  to  be  noticed  here 


CONFORMITY  TO  NEW  TESTAMENT.  183 

may  be  described  as  a  tendency  toward  the  usurpa- 
tion of  power  over  the  churches.  Inside  of  the 
churches  themselves  sometimes  the  so-called  ''board 
of  deacons,"  and  sometimes  a  small  group  of  would- 
be  leaders  undertakes  to  manage  the  affairs  of  the 
congregation.  This  is  due  in  large  measure,  it  must 
in  candor  be  said,  not  to  any  grasping  for  authority 
by  these  persons,  but  to  neglect  on  the  part  of  the 
churches  themselves.  There  may  be  also  now  and 
then  a  trace  of  desire  to  direct  or  control  church 
action  by  organizations  outside  of  the  churches; 
but  there  does  not  seem  to  be  much  of  this.  Usually 
the  co-operative  bodies  are  very  respectful  to  the  in- 
dependency of  the  churches,  and  the  churches  very 
jealous  of  the  faintest  semblance  of  outside  dicta- 
tion. 

Still  another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  innovation 
confronts  us  in  the  multiplying  of  societies  and 
agencies  connected  with  the  churches  for  doing  the 
work  proper  to  the  church.  Societies  of  dififerent 
kinds  within  the  membership  may  not  be  an  unmiti- 
gated evil,  but  they  do  have  a  certain  disintegrating 
tendency  ,  and  may  lower  somewhat  the  conception 
of  the  church  as  a  unit  attending  to  its  own  affairs 
and  marking  out  its  own  work.  All  these  societies, 
of  whatever  sort  they  be,  should  be  made  to  recog- 
nize their  subordination  to  the  church  itself,  and 
the  church  by  friendly  interest  and  inquiry  should 
keep  itself  informed  by  anual  reports  or  otherwise 
as  to  their  work.  If  properly  subordinated  to  the 
church  and  controlled  by  it,  these  organizations  are 
capable  of  great  good,  but  otherwise  they  become  a 
serious   departure    from   apostolic   methods   and   a 


184  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

menace  to  the  vitality  and  power  of  specific  church 
life. 

These  various  matters  have  been  only  suggestively 
treated  without  any  attempt  at  fullness  of  discus- 
sion; but  upon  a  candid  survey  of  the  whole  situa- 
tion it  appears  that  the  departures  among  the  Bap- 
tist churches  from  the  actual  plan  of  the  apostolic 
churches  are  of  very  much  less  moment  than  their 
conformities  to  that  model.  We  have  seen  that  the 
main  principles  of  apostolic  organization  are  fairly 
well  preserved  in  the  Baptist  churches  of  to-day; 
while  the  changes  and  innovations,  though  appar- 
ently numerous,  are  really  such  as  grow  out  of  the 
changed  conditions  of  our  time,  or  may  be  justified 
upon  a  careful  study  of  the  principles  of  the  apos- 
tolic church  polity. 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  185 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XI. 

ORGANIZATION  OP  BAPTIST  CHURCHES. 

I.  Meaning  of  Organization. 

1.  Definition. 

2.  Reasons  for  organization. 

3.  Purposes  of  organization. 

(1)  Edification. 

(2)  Service. 

4.  Elements  of  organization. 

(1)  Constitutive. 

(a)  Covenant. 

(b)  Creed. 

(2)  Completive. 

(a)  Appointment  of  officers. 

(b)  Apportionment  of  work. 

II.  Method  of  organization. 

1.  Preliminaries. 
(!)   Consultation. 
(2)    Securing  letters. 

2.  Act :  Vote  of  constituent  members. 

(1)  Determination  of  credentials. 

(2)  Adoption  of  covenant  and  creed. 

3.  Modes  of  procedure. 

(1)  By  church  alone. 

(2)  In  presence  of  an  advisory  council. 

(3)  By  help  of  a  constituting  council. 

III.  Recognition  of  churches  when  organized. 

1.  By  simultaneous  council. 

2.  By  subsequent  council. 

3.  By  associational  fellowship. 

4.  By  general  consent. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  OP  TO-DAY. 
THEIR  ORGANIZATION. 

The  organization  of  a  Baptist  church  is  an  ex- 
ceedingly important  matter,  and  it  has  not  received 
adequate  treatment.  The  object  of  this  chapter  is 
to  offer  some  practical  hints  as  to  the  organization 
of  our  churches.  The  main  points  to  be  considered 
are,  the  meaning  and  method  of  organization,  and 
the  recognition  of  churches  when  organized. 

We  first  consider  the  meaning  of  organization. 
At  the  outset  definition  is  necessary.  The  word  is 
ambiguous.  As  used  here  it  means  the  bringing  of 
a  church  into  existence.  This  act  is  often  spoken 
of  as  constituting  the  church;  and  some  prefer  to 
use  the  terms  organize  and  organization  in  refer- 
ence to  laying  out  the  work  of  the  church  after  it  has 
been  constituted.  But  the  word  constitution  is  also 
■susceptible  of  several  different  meanings,  and  we 
should  gain  nothing  by  substituting  that.  The  term 
organization  is  therefore  preferred.  The  word  organ 
{opya'^nv)  mcans  originally  an  instrument,  a  tool, 
by  which  work  is  done;  so  figuratively  in  social, 
political  and  religious  affairs  organization  is  the 
process  by  which  a  number,  or  mass,  of  people  be- 
come a  body,  or  unit,  for  the  transaction  of  work; 
and  often,  by  a  common  usage  of  speech,  the  body 

186 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  187 

which  has  become  organized  is  itself  called  the  or- 
ganization. In  this  discussion  the  word  means  the 
act  by  which  a  number  of  Christian  believers  unite 
to  become  a  distinct  and  permanent  body  with  defi- 
nite aims  and  principles. 

The  next  question  is,  Why  are  Baptist  churches 
constituted?  Why  should  not  baptized  believers  in 
Christ  remain  individual  and  separate?  Why  should 
they  come  together  and  unite  themselves  in  definite 
societies  called  churches?  And  so  let  us  point  out 
the  main  reasons  for  the  organization  of  a  Baptist 
church.  Among  these  reasons  first  place  must  be 
given  to  that  w^hich  is  supreme.  In  organizing  them- 
selves into  definite  bodies  the  followers  of  Jesus 
Christ  are  obeying  their  great  Head  and  Lord.  It 
is  true  that  we  have  no  explicit  command  of  his  that 
his  followers  should  so  organize  themselves ;  but  the 
actions  of  the  Apostles  in  establishing  churches  are 
beyond  question  the  reflection  of  our  Lord's  own 
will.  Besides  this,  the  Scripture  in  Matt.  18:17, 
"Tell  it  to  the  church,"  clearly  shows  that  our  Lord 
anticipated  that  his  people  would  be  organized,  or 
at  least  collected,  into  definite  assemblies.  We  may 
infer  that  he  had  spoken  to  his  disciples  concerning 
this  matter,  and  that  they  understood  his  will.  This 
alone  would  be  reason  sufticient  for  the  coining  to- 
gether of  separate  Christians  into  organized  church 
life.  Moreover,  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  as  was 
shown  in  a  former  chapter,  societies  of  all  kinds 
abounded  among  the  people;  and  it  was  and  re- 
mains one  of  the  most  natural  things  in  the  world 
for  those  who  have  common  sentiments  and  pur- 
poses to  unite  in  an  organization.     Our  Lord's  will 


188  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

thus  recognizes  a  natural  and  well-nigh  universal 
human  instinct. 

Besides  these  reasons  for  organization,  we  may 
notice  the  purposes  which  are  had  in  view.  Chief 
among  these  is  the  edification  of  the  church  (Eph. 
4:16).  Here  we  may  include  the  duty  of  the  church 
to  maintain  the  Christian  ordinances  in  their  sim- 
plicity and  power.  The  two  solemn  ordinances  of 
our  Lord,  the  one  a  token  of  absolute  allegiance  to 
him  and  the  other  a  tender  memorial  of  his  dying 
love,  are  to  be  perpetuated;  and  this  is  better  done 
by  united  church  action.  Indeed,  we  may  fairly 
ask,  How  could  these  solemn  rites  be  suitably  per- 
formed and  passed  on  from  age  to  age  without 
some  organization  with  which  their  due  observance 
is  continuously  identified? 

Another  most  important  means  of  edification  is 
to  maintain  the  worship  of  God  according  to  the 
principles  and  traditions  of  the  gospel.  This  is  done 
in  various  ways.  In  its  proper  sense  worship  is 
homage  paid  to  God,  but  it  also  sets  forth  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  religion.  Preaching  is  usually 
connected  with  worship.  It  should  not  usurp  the 
place  of  worship,  and  is  not  exactly  an  act  of  wor- 
ship, and  yet  it  is  the  divinely  intended  instrument 
for  the  salvation  of  sinners  and  the  building  up  of 
the  saints.  Of  course  there  should  be  a  sort  of 
preaching  in  a  private  way,  and  often  in  public  as- 
semblies not  directly  connected  with  the  worship 
of  churches ;  yet,  there  is  ever  a  place  for  the  spoken 
word  in  close  connection  with  the  church  life.  Be- 
sides, there  must  be  continual  teaching  of  those  who 
have  been  brought  in,  or  may  be  brought  in,  to  take 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  189 

part  in  the  life  and  work  of  the  churches.  Teaching 
is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  regular 
function  of  some  within  the  church.  This  teaching 
of  the  Scriptures  to  the  young,  or  others  connected 
with  the  membership,  should  be  directly  under  the 
control  of  the  church.  Sometimes  it  is  well  for  the 
church  to  have  a  formal  statement  or  printed  decla- 
ration of  doctrine  to  place  in  the  hands  of  each 
member. 

A  vital  part  of  edification  is  the  observance  of  dis- 
cipline among  the  members  of  the  church.  Theoret- 
ically this  includes  the  whole  spiritual  nurture  of 
her  children  by  the  mother  church.  It  involves  the 
mutual  care  of  the  members  for  one  another.  It 
looks  to  the  general  building  up  and  strengthening 
of  all  in  the  life  of  Christian  faith,  love  and  hope. 
It  should  embrace  the  corrective  and  reclamatory 
treatment  of  the  erring;  and  as  a  last  resort  it 
should  enforce  the  infliction  of  the  church's  penal- 
ties upon  those  who  have  been  found  guilty  of  moral 
or  doctrinal  corruption. 

In  addition  to  edification,  w^e  should  by  no  means 
omit  the  great  fact  that  churches  are  organized  for 
service.  Our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples  in  John 
9 :4,  "We  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  me 
while  it  is  day,"  and  Paul  tells  us  in  Col.  1 :10  that 
we  should  be  '^fruitful  in  every  good  work."  Work 
is  a  supreme  element  in  every  well-regulated  church 
life.  Some  parts  of  this  work  have  already  been  no- 
ticed in  connection  with  the  edification  of  the  church, 
but  to  labor  for  the  unsaved  is  also  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal objects  of  church  organization.  This  great 
purpose  may  be  combined  with  preaching  and  teach- 


190  POhTTY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ing  and  with  the  giving  of  money  for  missions.  The 
whole  matter  of  the  work  and  worship  of  the 
churches  will  be  considered  more  at  length  in  an- 
other part  of  this  treatise,  but  it  has  seemed  well 
briefly  to  indicate  here  the  principal  purposes  for 
which  churches  are  organized. 

Passing  from  the  purposes,  we  naturally  think 
next  of  the  elements  of  organization.  In  what  does 
the  organization  of  a  Baptist  church  consist?  The 
elements  may  be  classified  as  constitutive  and  com- 
pletive— that  is,  those  which  are  essential  to  the  or- 
ganization that  it  may  come  into  being,  and  those 
which  are  necessary  for  completeness  and  effective- 
ness in  the  body  after  it  has  been  constituted. 

The  constitutive  elements  of  organization  are  es- 
sential. They  belong  to  the  very  beginning  of  the 
church's  life.  There  is  no  organization  without 
them.  These  necessary  things  are  two — viz.,  cove- 
nant and  creed.  It  is  not  requisite  that  these 
names  should  always  be  applied,  but  the  things 
which  are  meant  by  them  are  absolutely  essential  to 
the  organization  of  a  church.  A  covenant  is  neces- 
sary— that  is,  a  voluntary  act  by  which  Christians 
enter  into  relations  one  with  another  as  members 
of  a  church.  It  is  not  necessary  to  adopt  a  form  of 
words  called  a  covenant,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  use 
the  term  covenant  at  all.  This  is  simpl}^  a  con- 
venient designation,  but  there  must  be  an  act  of 
union  and  a  voluntary  entering  into  union,  or  there 
can  be  no  organized  church  life. 

The  other  constitutive  element  may  be  called  a 
creed — that  is,  the  doctrinal  basis  on  which  the  vol- 
untary  union    just    described    takes    place.      Here, 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  191 

again,  it  is  not  necessary  to  adopt  any  printed  or 
written  declaration  of  faith;  but  some  kind  of  doc- 
trinal agreement  must  lie  at  the  root  of  the  organi- 
zation, or  it  cannot  be  a  church.  Though  it  is  not 
essential  that  there  should  be  a  formal  Baptist  creed, 
it  is  certainly  clear  that  there  must  be  accord  with 
the  well-understood  principles  of  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination before  a  church,  however  constituted, 
could  rightly  ask  to  be  recognized  by  other  Baptist 
churches  as  one  of  themselves.  So  it  appears  that 
whether  the  terms  ''covenant"  and  ''creed"  are  used 
or  not,  there  must  be  the  action  and  understanding 
which  it  is  the  purpose  of  these  words  to  set  forth. 

When  the  action  just  described  has  been  taken,  the 
church  has  been  constituted,  and  has  started  upon 
its  career  of  active  life;  yet  it  is  evident  that  if 
nothing  more  is  done  the  church  will  not  be  fully 
organized  and  equipped  for  the  work  it  has  in  hand 
to  do.  There  are  requisite,  therefore,  some  other 
elements  which  may  be  called  completive,  as  finish- 
ing the  act  of  organization.  These  completive  ele- 
ments are  not  essential  to  the  church's  being,  but  to 
its  well-being. 

As  the  first  step  towards  completing  the  organiza- 
tion, ofificers  must  be  appointed.  No  body  can  per- 
form properly  the  purposes  for  which  it  exists  with- 
out officers,  or  servants,  who  shall  be  charged  with 
certain  duties.  Here  we  must  recognize  two  classes 
of  officers,  the  scriptural,  and  what  may  be  called 
the  extra-scriptural.  The  scriptural  oflflcers  are  pas- 
tor and  deacons.  It  is  obvious  at  once  that  these 
officials  are  not  necessary  to  the  church's  existence, 
but  still  no  one  could  sav  that  the  church  is  com- 


192  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

pletely  organized  according  to  the  New  Testament 
model  when  it  has  no  pastor  or  deacons.  We  must, 
also,  have  certain  other  officers,  not  definitely,  or 
even  by  implication,  provided  for  in  the  Bible. 
These  are  clerk,  treasurer,  trustees,  with  possibly 
some  others.  In  some  sense  the  appointment  of  a 
clerk  is  essential  to  organization,  or  so  nearly  so 
that  it  may  be  considered  necessary.  The  office  of 
treasurer  is  important,  though  his  duties  are  often 
discharged  by  the  deacons,  and  something  may  be 
said  for  that  arrangement.  As  to  trustees,  usage 
varies.  In  some  States  the  church  itself  is  incor- 
porated, and  trustees  are  not  needed.  In  some 
others  there  is  a  corporation,  or  society,  owning  the 
property  and  making  the  business  arrangements  for 
the  church.  Other  occasional  and  minor  officers  of 
the  church  hardly  need  mentioning. 

Another  distinction  among  the  completive  ele- 
ments of  church  organization  would  have  reference 
to  subdivisions  of  the  church  by  which  its  work  is 
parceled  out  for  greater  convenience  and  efifective- 
ness.  The  two  principal  ways  in  which  the  work  of 
the  church  is  divided  among  its  members  are  by  com- 
mittees and  societies.  Committees  may  be  either 
standing  or  special.  Standing  committees  are  those 
which  are  appointed  by  the  year,  or  some  other  long 
term,  and  charged  continuously  with  certain  duties. 
Churches  differ  very  widely  from  one  another  in  the 
matter  of  raising  and  keeping  standing  committees. 
Very  often  the  same  church  changes  its  ways  in  this 
regard  according  to  the  views  of  the  successive  pas- 
tors it  may  have.  Some  pastors  are  great  organizers 
and  seem  to  think  that  the  church  cannot  go  on  at 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  193 

all  unless  it  is  divided  out  in  squares  and  cubes  with 
standing  committees;  while  others  may  go  to  the 
other  extreme  and  have  no  committees  at  all.  In 
such  matters  each  church  must  decide  for  itself  as 
to  the  advisability  of  standing  committees.  It  may 
be  said,  however,  that  often  the  deacons  are  left 
without  occupation  by  the  appointment  of  standing 
committees.  It  does  not  seem  best,  for  instance,  to 
have  a  standing  committee  on  discipline.  There  is 
no  good  reason  why  the  deacons  should  not  be  the 
pastor's  advisers  and  helpers  in  this  matter.  Many 
churches  have  a  standing  committee  on  finance,  and 
in  large  city  churches  this  may  be  desirable;  but  in 
the  smaller  churches  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
deacons  should  not  attend  to  this  also;  and  so  we 
might  mention  other  committees.  Much  depends 
upon  the  size  of  the  church,  the  largeness  of  its  work, 
and  numerous  other  circumstances  which  need  not 
be  specially  mentioned.  Besides  these  standing  com- 
mittees it  is  often  necessary  that  the  church  should 
raise  special  committees  for  the  discharge  of  certain 
specified  duties.  This  familiar  procedure  needs  no 
discussion;  only  let  it  be  said  that  great  wisdom  is 
needed  on  the  part  of  the  moderator,  or  mover,  in 
the  selection  of  these  committees. 

We  may  add  here  that  some  churches  have  a  for- 
mally adopted  constitution  and  by-laws  for  their 
guidance  in  the  transaction  of  business.  This  is  not 
at  all  necessary  and  may  sometimes  be  a  hindrance 
rather  than  a  help ;  still  it  is  not  undesirable  to  have 
such  an  instrument  for  the  general  guidance  of  the 
church  in  matters  of  detail.  By-laws,  or  standing 
resolutions,  as  they  are  sometimes  called,  often  serve 


194:  POLITY  OP  THE   CHURCHES. 

to  give  the  church's  work  a  certain  permanency  of 
shape.  Brief  manuals  consisting  of  a  historical 
sketch  of  the  church,  with  standing  resolutions,  the, 
covenant  and  articles  of  faith,  with  a  list  of  the 
members  added,  are  often  found  useful,  especially 
for  the  help  of  new  members  coming  into  the  church. 
All  such  things  are,  of  course,  in  the  discretion  of 
^ach  church,  and  as  a  result  there  is  a  very  great  di- 
versity of  practice  among  Baptists  in  these  matters. 

The  next  topic  to  be  considered  is  that  of  method. 
What  is  the  proper  course  of  procedure  in  organiz- 
ing a  Baptist  church?  It  is  not  a  difficult  matter  in 
itself,  and  yet  it  is  one  of  great  importance,  and  re- 
quires judicious  and  careful  handling.  We  have 
nothing  definite  in  the  Scripture  as  to  how  the  Apos- 
tles proceeded  in  establishing  churches.  It  was 
probably  a  very  informal  and  simple  action  taken 
under  apostolic  guidance  and  direction.  So  now  in 
our  mission  fields,  and  in  some  exceptional  cases  in 
our  own  country,  churches  will  be  organized  out  of 
newly  baptized  converts  under  the  direction  of  the 
-evangelist  or  minister  in  charge.  But  most  com- 
monly among  us  churches  are  organized  from  the 
members  of  other  churches,  and  the  course  to  be  pur- 
sued in  such  cases  ought  to  be  thoroughly  under- 
stood by  our  ministry,  as  w^ll  as  others. 

First  of  all  we  should  consider  some  preliminaries 
to  organization.  In  all  cases,  before  any  public 
action,  there  should  be  very  careful  private  consul- 
tation, in  which  all  the  parties  and  institutions  con- 
cerned should  have  full  and  just  attention.  Usually 
there  is  no  need  of  haste.  Almost  every  useful  and 
sound  institution  represents  a  vast  amount  of  per- 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  195 

sonal,  earnest  conference  in  private  before  public 
action  gives  to  it  finality  and  permanency.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  establishing  of  a  great  business 
corporation.  Men  do  not  .become  members  of  these 
important  institutions  without  much  preliminary 
and  careful  consultation ;  and  so  it  should  be  in  the 
forming  of  churches.  The  real  work  precedes  the 
final  and  public  step  which  consummates  the  action 
that  has  long  been  growing  toward  such  completion. 
It  would  be  greatly  better  for  denominational  inter- 
ests if  more  attention  were  paid  to  this  point,  and 
careful,  private  consultation  came  before  final  and 
public  action. 

Taking  all  this  for  granted,  the  next  step  will  be 
for  the  persons  interested  in  forming  the  church  to 
obtain  letters  of  dismission  from  the  churches  of 
which  they  are  members.  In  such  cases  it  is  desir- 
able that  the  letters  should  specify  the  purpose  for 
which  they  are  granted.  Now,  where  a  number  of 
persons  go  out  from  one  church  for  the  purpose  of 
organizing  a  new  one,  their  names  may  all  be  in- 
cluded in  a  joint  letter— that  is,  the  mother  church 
grants  to  the  brethren  and  sisters  named  this  letter 
with  the  view  of  their  uniting  with  each  other,  and 
with  others  of  like  mind,  for  the  purpose  of  consti- 
tuting a  new  church ;  or  something  to  this  effect 

Coming  now  to  the  act  of  organization  itself,  we 
must  say  that  in  all  cases  this  must  be  the  voluntary 
action  of  those  persons  who  enter  into  the  new 
church  relation.  This  action  may  be  performed,  or 
expressed,  in  different  ways,  but  it  must  evidently 
be  taken  voluntarily  and  definitely  by  the  persons 
themselves  who   desire  to  constitute  the  church— 


196  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

that  is  to  say,  the  church  constitutes  itself;  it  is 
not  made,  or  brought  into  existence,  b}-  any  outside 
persons.  These  may  help  in  the  organization  by 
their  presence  and  advice,  or  they  maj^  afterwards 
recognize  the  action  as  valid,  proper  and  customary, 
but  they  have  no  hand  in  the  actual  constituting 
act.  There  are  two  parts  in  this  act  of  organization. 
The  first  is  the  determination  of  the  standing  of  the 
parties  proposing  to  enter  the  organization — that  is, 
the  examination  of  letters  submitted,  or  the  hearing 
of  the  experience  of  those  who  propose  to  enter  into 
the  church  relation.  There  must  be  a  distinct  under- 
standing that  the  parties  are  properly  qualified  to 
take  upon  themselves  a  new  and  independent  char- 
acter as  a  church  of  Christ.  The  other  part  of  the 
act  of  organization  is  the  voluntary,  but  formal, 
adoption  of  a  creed  and  covenant.  This  matter  has 
already  been  considered  when  we  were  discussing 
the  constitutive  elements  of  organization.  But 
whether  or  not  a  formal  printed  or  written  instru- 
ment is  adopted,  there  must  be  the  covenant  rela- 
tion and  the  doctrinal  basis  voluntarily  and  defi- 
nitely accepted  by  the  body  itself. 

The  modes  of  jjrocedure  whereby  this  act  of  organ- 
ization is  publicly  taken  are  various.  In  some  cases 
it  is  taken  by  the  church  alone.  The  brethren  and 
sisters  come  together,  appoint  a  moderator  or  chair- 
man from  among  themselves,  a  clerk  or  secretary, 
and  then  proceed  by  the  examination  of  letters  and 
the  adoption  of  a  creed  and  covenant  to  vote  them- 
selves a  church.  Sometimes  the  presence  of  a  min- 
ister or  some  well-known  leader  is  requested,  and 
he  gives  advice  as  to  the  steps  to  be  taken.    This  is 


THEIR  ORGAXIZATION.  197 

the  simplest  wav  of  organizing  a  church. 

Another  way  is  for  the  church  to  organize  itself 
in  the  presence  of  an  advisory  council — that  is,  a 
council,  or  presbytery,  composed  of  representatives 
of  neighboring  churches  specially  appointed  by  re- 
quest for  the  purpose  of  witnessing  and  sanction- 
ing the  step.  This  council  organizes  itself  and  votes 
approval  or  disapproval,  or  postponement,  as  the 
case  may  require.  But  the  constitution  of  the 
church  is  really  independent  of  the  action  of  the 
council,  and  may  have  taken  place  before  the  coun- 
cil was  called  to  recognize  the  body.  In  such  cases 
the  approval  of  the  presbytery  only  endorses  the 
church  and  gives  it  a  standing  among  its  sister 
churches.  The  disapproval  of  the  council  does  not 
unmake  the  church,  but  simply  leaves  it  to  itself. 

Another  way  is  by  an  advisory  council.  Here 
there  would  be  some  difference  in  the  procedure  ac- 
cording to  circumstances.  Without  having  obtained 
letters,  or  being  yet  prepared  to  enter  into  an  or- 
ganization, certain  brethren  might  ask  churches  in 
the  neighborhood  to  send  members  to  sit  in  council 
on  the  propriety  of  organization,  and  then  these 
brethren  would  take  subsequent  action  according  to 
the  findings  of  the  council,  either  proceeding  to  or- 
ganize, or  concluding  not  to  do  so.  Or,  having  ob- 
tained letters,  but  not  yet  being  organized,  the 
holders  of  the  letters  before  taking  the  final  step 
may  seek  the  advice  of  a  council  to  help  them  shape 
their  action.  Should  the  council  advise  delay,  or 
even  disapprove  the  project  altogether,  the  letters 
may  be  returned,  but  the  holders  are  free  to  act  as 
they  please  without  reference  to  the  judgment  of  the 


198  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

council.  It  will  remain  for  other  churches  to  recog- 
nize them  or  not,  as  may  seem  best  to  them.  Should 
the  council  advise  organization,  this  may  proceed 
in  their  presence  by  the  action  of  the  church  itself; 
and  then  after  the  church  has  organized  itself,  the 
council  may  reconvene  and  formally  give  recognition 
to  the  church. 

Still  another  way,  and  in  most  cases  the  best  way, 
is  to  organize  by  means  of  a  constituting  council,  or 
presbytery.  Here  the  council  first  comes  to  order 
and  elects  its  chairman  and  clerk.  Through  these  it 
then  examines  the  letters  of  the  parties  proposing 
to  organize  the  church,  considers  their  covenant  and 
declaration  of  faith,  if  any  are  ofifered.  If  no  formal 
covenant,  or  declaration  of  faith,  is  offered,  the 
chairman  of  the  council,  with  the  assistance  of  its 
other  members,  should  proceed  to  question  the  lead- 
ers as  to  the  reasons  for  their  organization,  as  to 
their  proposed  doctrinal  basis,  and  whatever  other 
matters  may  in  their  discretion  be  desirable.  Hav- 
ing obtained  the  necessary  information,  the  coun- 
cil will  then  vote  as  to  whether  they  shall  proceed 
with  the  organization.  In  case  of  a  negative  vote, 
the  council  will  then  adjourn,  and  is  at  an  end.  If 
the  holders  of  the  letters  reject  the  decision  of  the 
council,  it  is  still  competent  for  them  by  virtue  of 
their  letters  to  constitute  themselves  a  church  and 
to  claim  recognition  on  that  basis.  Whether  their 
■sister  churches  would  grant  them  recognition  or 
not  would  be  another  question ;  but  in  most  cases  it 
Would  be  best  for  them  to  return  their  letters  and 
give  up  trying  to  organize,  unless  better  times  come. 
If  the  preliminary  consultations,  which  were  advised 


■       THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  199 

in  a  former  part  of  this  discussion,  are  held,  such 
unfortunate  occurrences  as  these  will  be  avoided; 
and  happily  such  occurrences  are  very  rare. 

In  case  of  an  affirmative  vote  approving  the  or- 
ganization, the  council  will  then  proceed  through  its 
chairman  to  take  a  solemn  vote  from  the  holders  of 
the  letters  as  to  their  purpose,  on  the  basis  sub- 
mitted and  approved,  of  constituting  themselves  a 
church  of  Christ.  This  vote  may  be  taken  in  one 
of  two  ways.  The  chairman  may  ask  each  indi- 
vidual in  turn  as  to  his  purpose  of  entering  into  this 
solemn  church  relation ;  or,  what  is  simpler  and  just 
as  effective,  the  chairman  of  the  council,  having  read 
the  covenant  and  declaration  of  faith,  may  ask  those 
who  desire  to  enter  into  the  organization  to  signify 
their  adoption  of  these  instruments  by  rising.  Thus, 
under  the  guidance  of  the  council,  the  church 
actually  constitutes  itself.  This  being  done,  the 
council,  either  through  its  chairman  as  their  repre- 
sentative, or  each  individually  (which  is  better) 
gives  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  the  members  of  the 
newly  constituted  church,  declaring  them  regularly 
organized,  and  welcomed  to  the  sisterhoood  of  Bap- 
tist churches.  The  church  may  then  itself  come  to 
order  and  proceed  to  any  business  which  it  may 
have  to  do,  to  elect  officers,  sometimes  to  receive 
other  members  who  were  not  included  in  the  con- 
stituting act.  In  connection  with  this  business  pro- 
cedure there  ought  always  to  be  held  suitable  and 
impressive  devotional  exercises. 

After  the  organization  of  a  church  comes  its  recog- 
nition by  other  churches  of  like  faith  and  order. 
Evidently  this  does  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  or- 


200  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ganization  itself,  but  only  the  relations  of  the  new 
church  to  the  other  churches  of  the  denomination. 
There  are  several  ways  in  which  this  recognition  is 
commonly  accorded.  One  of  these  has  already  been 
spoken  of,  and  is  by  a  simultaneous  council ;  that 
is,  the  council  which  advises  or  assists  in  constitut- 
ing the  church  may  then  and  there  give  to  the  new 
body  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  and  recognition  as 
a  suitably  organized  Baptist  church.  Another  way 
is  by  a  subsequent  council.  The  church  having  been 
already  organized  may  invite  churches  in  the  neigh- 
borhood to  send  representatives  to  consider  the  pro- 
priety of  recognizing  them  as  a  regularly  consti- 
tuted Baptist  body.  If  this  council  approves  the 
formation  of  the  church  upon  a  consideration  of  its 
action,  and  of  its  covenant  and  creed,  it  will  then 
give  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  and  of  recognition, 
with  suitable  religious  services.  In  case  the  council 
should  refuse  to  recognize  the  church,  what  should 
be  done?  As  before  pointed  out,  this  refusal  can- 
not destroy  the  church.  Under  the  laws  of  our  free 
country,  and  by  the  clear  principles  of  the  Baptists 
themselves,  these  persons  have  a  legal  right  to  con- 
tinue their  existence  as  an  organization.  But  they 
would  have  no  moral  right  to  claim  to  be  a  Baptist 
church  when  others  of  that  name  had  refused  to 
consider  them  as  such;  but  the  church  upon  recon- 
sideration might  choose  to  disband,  the  members  re- 
turning to  their  former  churches.  These  cases  of 
difficulty  will  sometimes  arise,  and  action  will  have 
to  be  taken  according  to  circumstances  in  each  case. 
Ordinarily,  however,  the  council  approves  and  recog- 
nizes. 


THEIR  ORGANIZATION.  201 

Another  way  of  recognizing  a  church  is  by  giving 
associational  fellowship.  Very  often  this  follows 
even  where  the  recognizing  council  has  been  held. 
The  newly  constituted  church  sends  its  letter  to  the 
association  of  churches  with  which  it  proposes  to 
connect  itself.  The  association  appoints  a  commit- 
tee to  examine  into  the  status  of  the  church.  This 
committee  considers  the  action  of  the  council,  if  one 
has  been  called,  or,  if  not,  the  action  of  the  church 
itself,  giving  attention  to  the  covenant  and  creed 
submitted.  The  committee  then  reports  to  the  asso- 
eiation  its  findings,  and  if  the  status  of  the  church 
is  approved,  the  moderator  of  the  association  ex- 
tends the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  the  delegates 
present  and  thus  gives  the  formal  sanction  of  their 
sister  churches.  Should  the  association  refuse  to 
accept  the  church,  it  may  act  as  before  suggested  in 
the  case  of  a  council — that  is,  either  disband,  or  con- 
tinue its  existence  without  the  recognition  of  the 
Baptist  bodies. 

But  if  none  of  these  actions  should  be  taken  there 
is  still  another  way  in  which  a  church  may  be  recog- 
nized. For  the  sake  of  regularity  and  good  feeling, 
all  Baptist  churches  should  seek  associational  fel- 
lowship, though,  of  course,  this  is  not  essential  to 
church  existence,  or  even  to  denominational  recog- 
nition; for  this  may  be  given  by  general  consent 
without  the  action  either  of  a  council  or  an  associa- 
tion. And  in  cases  where  the  recognition  of  a  coun- 
cil, or  an  association,  or  both,  may  have  been  given, 
there  is  still  a  recognition  by  general  consent  which 
follows  and  completes  all  the  rest.  This  general  con- 
sent may  be  expressed  in  various  ways.     The  inter- 


202  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

ciiange  of  letters  dismissing  and  receiving  members 
of  sister  churches  is  one  way.  Another  is  by  acts  of 
co-operation  and  fellowship  both  in  worship  and  in 
work.  Another  is  by  pastoral  calls,  and  acceptances. 
A  minister  of  standing  in  the  denomination  is  called 
from  one  church  to  another.  These  churches  thus  in 
a  certain  way  recognize  each  other  as  Baptist 
churches;  and  the  visits  of  neighboring  pastors,  of 
well-known  preachers  and  evangelists  are  a  sort  of 
recognition  of  church  standing.  And  then,  in  the 
denominational  press,  churches  become  known  to 
each  other  and  recognize  each  other  as  belonging  to 
the  same  denomination.  This  general  consent,  how- 
ever, is  rather  indefinite  and  vague;  and  while  in 
some  measure  it  completes  and  strengthens  the 
formal  recognition  given  by  the  council  or  associa- 
tion, it  ought  not  to  be  the  only  recognition  of  each 
other  prevailing  among  Baptist  churches.  For  the 
sake  of  denominational  unity  and  comity  there 
should  be  definite  and  formal  recognition.  No  or- 
ganizations have  morally  a  right  to  assume  the  de- 
nominational name  without  some  acknowledgment 
or  consent  on  the  part  of  the  older  churches. 


ADVISORY  COUNCILS.  203 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XII. 

BAPTIST  COUNCILS. 

I.  Councils  relating  to  the  ministry. 

1.  Ordination. 

(1)  The  Baptist  theory  of  ordination. 

(2)  Why  have  ordaining  councils? 

(3)  Their  nature  and  authority. 

(4)  Method  of  procedure. 

2.  Discipline. 

(1)  Authority  is  in  local  church. 

(2)  Reasons  for  having  councils. 

(3)  Mode  of  procedure. 

II.  Councils  relating  to  churches. 

1.  Organization   and   recognition    of   churches. 

(Treated  in  previous  chapter.) 

2.  Settlement  of  church  troubles. 

(1)  Between    different    churches.      Occasion, 

call  and  composition;   procedure  and 
effect. 

(2)  Within  one  church.    Occasion,  etc. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  OF  TO-DAY. 
ORDAINING  AND  ADVISORY  COUNCILS, 

While  the  local  church  is  the  ultimate  source  of 
authority  in  the  Baptist  denomination,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  there  are  matters  in  which  greater  than 
local  interests  are  at  stake,  and  more  than  local 
opinion  and  action  is  desirable.  Hence  councils  are 
often  called  to  consider  these  larger  interests  and 
take  action  upon  them,  in  cases  where  the  council  is 
competent  to  act ;  or  recommend  action  to  the  church 
or  churches  in  cases  where  church  action  alone  can 
be  final.  While  a  number  of  emergencies  requiring 
action  by  councils  may  conceivably  arise,  practically 
by  far  the  greater  number  of  such  cases  may  be  re- 
duced to  two  classes :  those  which  relate  to  the  min- 
istry, and  those  which  relate  to  the  churches  them- 
selves. 

In  the  case  of  ministers  councils,  or  presbyteries, 
are  for  two  purposes:  ordination  and  discipline — 
the  former  very  common,  the  latter  very  rare.  We 
first  notice  ordaining  councils. 

The  Baptist  theory  of  ordination  is  very  simple: 
The  action  does  not  confer  any  spiritual  grace,  nor 
any  sacerdotal  authority;  it  is  only  a  solemn  recog- 
nition by  the  churches  of  a  man's  call  of  God  to  the 
ministry,  and  a  formal  authorization  of  him  to  per- 
form certain  official  acts  for  the  Baptist  churches 

204 


ADVISORY  COUNCILS.  205 

and  brotherhood.  These  official  acts  are  the  public 
preaching  of  the  gospel  as  a  representative  of  the 
denomination,  the  conduct  of  worship  and  business 
for  any  Baptist  church  on  request,  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Baptists  hold  that  these  acts  are  properly 
authorized  (humanly  speaking)  by  the  local 
churches  alone,  and  that  if  a  church  so  chooses  it 
may  appoint  any  of  its  members  to  perform' them ; 
but  for  various  reasons  it  is  a  well-established  prac- 
tice among  Baptists  to  have  these  actions  regularly 
performed  by  a  class  of  officials  set  apart  for  that 
purpose.  This  practice  is  founded  in  the  precedents 
and  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  regarding  the 
ministry,  is  confirmed  by  almost  universal  custom 
among  all  sects  of  Christians,  and  is  justified  by  the 
requirements  of  good  order  and  expediency.  Bap- 
tists seek  to  avoid  two  extremes :  that  of  sacerdotal 
officialism  on  the  one  hand  and  that  of  looseness 
and  irregularity  on  the  other.  By  insisting  on  the 
authority  and  initiative  of  the  local  church  in  ordi- 
nation they  efifectually  discountenance  all  hierarchi- 
cal pretensions  in  their  ministry,  and  by  requiring 
ordination,  however  simple,  as  a  conventional 
though  not  essential  qualification  for  the  exercise 
of  ministerial  functions,  they  protect  themselves  as 
far  as  possible  from  unaccredited  and  self-appointed 
leaders. 

It  is  involved  in  this  theory  of  ordination  that  the 
human  and  church  side  of  the  authorization  of  a 
minister  of  the  gospel  is  among  Baptists  an  affair 
of  both  local  and  general  denominational  concern. 
If  it  were  general  only  then  no  one  church  could 


206  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

grant  the  requisite  recognition  and  authority  to  a 
minister.  If  it  were  local  only  then  nothing  more 
than  action  by  a  local  church  would  be  called  for. 
And  indeed  this  is  all  that  is  essential — any  church 
can  of  itself  ordain  and  send  forth  a  minister  among 
Baptists,  and  sometimes  such  action  is  expedient  or 
even  necessary.  But  still  it  is  recognized  that  the 
denomination  as  a  whole  has  rights  which  must  be 
considered  when  a  man  is  solemnly  and  publicly  au- 
thorized to  perform  ministerial  duties  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Baptist  churches  generally.  It  is 
just  this  combination  of  local  authority  with  inter- 
ests that  are  both  local  and  general  which  calls  for 
the  action  of  a  council  or  presbytery  for  the  ordina- 
tion of  a  Baptist  minister.  Besides  this  funda- 
mental reason  for  the  employment  of  councils  there 
is  also  one  of  convenience  and  efficiency.  The  fit- 
ness of  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  can  be  tested 
far  more  easily  and  accurately  by  a  committee  of 
expert  and  trusted  men  than  by  a  church  in  congre- 
gational assembly.  A  still  further  reason  for  hav- 
ing a  council  is  that  of  dignity  and  impressiveness. 
The  induction  of  a  man  into  the  Christian  ministry 
is  in  every  way  a  serious  business,  and  the  examina- 
tion and  setting  apart  of  the  candidate  by  a  presby- 
tery of  his  more  experienced  brethren  may  and 
should  be  made  an  occasion  of  deep  and  solemn  in- 
terest to  all  concerned. 

We  must  now  consider  how  an  ordaining  council 
or  presbytery  is  called  together  and  of  whom  it  is 
composed.  The  initiative  rests  with  the  candidate 
and  with  the  local  church.  A  man  has  convictions 
that  he  is  called  of  God  to  the  ministry.    That  is  the 


ADVISORY  COUNCILS.  207 

divine  and  the  personal  human  side.  The  man  him- 
self, his  friends,  his  church,  in  various  ways  give 
attention  to  this  side  of  the  matter  till  it  becomes 
definite  enough  for  official  notice  and  action  on  the 
part  of  the  church.  Very  common  it  is  for  a  church 
first  to  grant  to  the  brother  a  "license"  to  preach, 
or  by  formal  vote  to  approve  of  his  purpose  at  some 
time  in  the  future  to  enter  the  ministry.  Sometimes 
the  brother  pursues  the  matter  no  further,  but  re- 
mains a  licensed  preacher  in  his  own  church  with- 
out pastoral  charge  or  general  recognition  as  a  min- 
ister in  full.  Usually,  however,  license  and  formal 
approval  are  regarded  as  only  preliminary  steps 
leading  to  ordination,  and  they  serve  the  good  pur- 
pose of  testing  and  training  a  man  before  he  assumes 
the  full  responsibilities  of  his  calling.  Often  a  can- 
didate pursues  his  theological  studies  in  this  inter- 
val. But  in  all  these  things  there  is  no  hard  and 
fast  custom,  much  less  law.  Churches  are  free  to 
ordain  whom,  how  and  when  they  will. 

The  usual  mode  of  procedure  is  that  the  church 
of  which  the  candidate  is  a  member  votes  to  call  a 
council  or  presbytery  to  examine  the  brother  with  a 
view  to  his  ordination.  Sometimes  the  presbytery 
is  expected  to  report  back  to  the  church  the  results 
of  their  examination  with  a  recommendation  for  ac- 
tion by  the  church.  If  the  recommendation  is  favor- 
able, the  church  then  by  another  vote  authorizes  the 
council  to  proceed  with  the  public  ceremony  of  ordi- 
nation in  such  manner  as  may  be  agreed  upon.  If 
the  decision  of  the  council  should  be  adverse,  the 
church  is  still  free  to  act  as  it  sees  fit.  Another 
council  may  be  called  if  the  church  is  not  satisfied 


208  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

with  the  action  of  the  first.  But  such  a  case  is  not 
at  all  likely  to  occur.  A  simpler  way,  and  quite 
as  often  employed,  is  for  the  church  in  its  original 
action  to  give  the  council  power  to  proceed  with  the 
ordination  if  the  examination  proves  satisfactory. 
In  this  case  it  would  only  be  necessary  to  report 
back  to  the  church  in  case  the  council  disapproves 
of  the  candidate.  A  modification  of  this  method 
occurs  when  some  other  church  than  the  one  of 
which  the  candidate  is  a  member  asks  for  his  ordi- 
nation. This  is  done  sometimes  when  the  request- 
ing church  is  one  for  whom  the  candidate  is  expected 
to  render  service  without  having  severed  his  connec- 
tion with  his  home  church.  In  this  case  the  church 
calling  for  the  services  of  the  brother  asks  and  ob- 
tains permission  from  his  home  church  to  call  a 
council  and  ordain  him.  In  some  other  cases  the 
home  church  may  take  the  initiative  and  request  the 
calling  church  to  summon  a  council  and  proceed. 
But  these  comi^lications  may  be  easily  avoided  and 
time  saved  by  the  candidate's  transferring  his  mem- 
bership to  the  calling  church  and  having  the  ordi- 
nation under  its  authority. 

The  next  matter  relates  to  the  members  of  the 
council.  Obviously  the  number  of  members  is  un- 
essential and  varies  with  circumstances.  The  mat- 
ter of  numbers  is  important  only  in  reference  to  the 
examination — the  public  ceremony  requires  only 
^rom  two  to  five  participants,  commonly  selected  by 
the  council  at  the  request  of  the  candidate  himself. 
But  for  the  examination  it  is  desirable  that  a  coun- 
cil should  be  as  large  and  representative  as  due 
weight  and  care  in  so  important  a  matter  demand,. 


ADVISORY  COUNCILS.  209 

without  being  needlessly  cumbersome  in   size.     In 
eases  whei-e  circumstances  compel  a  very  small  coun- 
cil, it  may  add  weight  to  its  own  deliberations  by 
requesting  the  assistance  of  others  not  originally 
appointed,  or  by  conducting  the  examination  in  the 
presence  of  the  church.    A  church  may  call  the  coun- 
cil from  its  own  membership  alone,  but  everv  con- 
sideration of  denominational  policy  and  right  sug- 
gests  the   propriety   of   having   the   representation 
larger  than  that  of  one  local  church.     In  securing 
the  co-operation  of  others  the  church  may  by  vote 
request  certain  named  brethren  to  act.  or  it  may 
delegate  the  selection  to  a  committee  including  its 
own  representatives  on  the  council,  or  in  cases  of 
special  interest  or  where  difficulties  may  be  feared 
it  may  request  other  churches  to  appoint  whom  they 
will  to  sit  in  council  with  its  own  members.     This 
method  is  very  desirable  in  cases  of  councils  for  the 
consideration    of    troublesome    questions,    but    is 
scarcely    ever    needed    in    ordinations,    because    a 
church  would  not  ordinarily  call  for  a  council  unless 
it  had  good  reason  to  expect  that  there  would  arise 
no  special   difficulties.     Should   the  council   be  in- 
variably composed  of  ordained  ministers?    It  is  evi- 
dently proper  that   these   should   be  the   principal 
components,   and   the   name  of   ''presbytery"   often 
used  for  these  councils  shows  that  the  "elders"  have 
commonly  been  the  members.     But  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  this  should  always  be  the  case.    A  church 
has  a  right  to  ask  whom  it  will  to  serve. 

The  procedure  of  an  ordaining  council  consists  of 
two  parts:  the  examination  and  the  public  ceremony 
or  ordination  proper.     The  examination  is  the  in- 


210  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

dispensable  preliminary  to  the  ordination.  It  is 
usually  and  properly  conducted  in  private,  but  some- 
times where  a  candidate  is  known  to  be  well  pre- 
pared, and  is  willing,  it  has  a  good  effect  to  examine 
him  in  presence  of  the  congregation.  In  conducting 
the  examination  the  council  organizes  itself  by  de- 
termining the  credentials  of  its  members,  electing 
a  chairman  (or  moderator)  and  secretary  (or 
clerk).  The  questions  are  asked  either  by  the  mod- 
erator or  by  another,  or  several  others,  at  his  re- 
quest or  that  of  the  council.  But  though  one  may 
lead,  all  the  members  are  invited  to  ask  additional 
questions  at  their  will.  The  lines  of  inquiry  are 
three:  (1)  The  candidate's  conversion  and  subse- 
quent religious  experience;  (2)  his  call  to  the  min- 
istry and  views  of  his  duty;  (3)  his  doctrinal  be- 
liefs. If  upon  examination  the  council  finds  that 
it  cannot  approve  the  candidate,  it  directs  the  chair- 
man or  secretary  to  inform  the  church  of  its  find- 
ings, and  adjourns.  If  it  does  not  wholly  disap- 
prove it  may  suggest  that  after  further  instruction 
the  candidate  be  affoi'ded  another  opportunity  be- 
fore another  council.  But  it  may  simply  report  with- 
out recommendation,  stating  its  reasons  and  leav- 
ing the  case  with  the  church.  In  case  of  approval 
the  council  acts  according  to  its  instructions,  either 
referring  the  matter  to  the  church  with  approval 
and  leaving  the  church  to  arrange  for  the  public 
service,  or,  if  so  instructed,  proceeding  then  or  later 
to  the  public  ceremony.  The  details  are  usually  ar- 
ranged with  the  candidate,  and  his  wishes  are  re- 
garded in  assigning  the  parts  of  the  service,  setting 
the  time,  and  so  on.     The  customary  parts  of  the 


ADVISOHV  ("OUXCILS.  211 

services  are — along  with  tlie  usual  elements  of  wor- 
ship— a  sermon,  a  prayer  with  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  a  charge  to  the  candidate,  to  which  is  some- 
times added  the  presentation  of  a  copy  of  the  Bible 
with  appropriate  remarks.  Other  details  are  some- 
times added,  such  as  a  charge  to  the  church  when 
the  ordination  is  of  one  about  to  become  its  pastor. 
The  laying  on  of  hands  may  take  place  during  the 
prayer  of  ordination,  all  the  presbytery  standing 
around  the  kneeling  candidate  with  their  hands 
lightly  resting  on  his  head,  or  it  may  follow  the 
prayer,  the  candidate  still  kneeling.  The  jirayer 
and  laying  on  of  hands  is  the  essential  and  signifi- 
cant feature  of  the  act  of  ordination.  As  already 
stated,  it  does  not  signify  the  impartation  of  spir- 
itual grace  nor  sacerdotal  authority;  but  it  is  the 
traditional  and  formal  way  among  Baptists  of 
solemnly  setting  apart  a  man,  believed  to  be  called 
of  God  and  now  approved  of  his  brethren,  to  the 
work  of  the  gospel  ministry,  and  of  invoking  the  di- 
vine blessing  and  approval  upon  the  act. 

Another  sort  of  councils  dealing  with  the  minis- 
try are  those  which  are  called  to  give  advice  in  cases 
of  doctrinal  or  moral  lapse  in  a  minister,  when  for 
any  reason  it  is  desirable  that  the  discipline  of  the 
local  church  should  be  guided  by  a  larger  rang-e  of 
investigation  and  opinion  than  its  own.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  the  local  church  is  the  only  judi- 
cial and  disciplinary  tribunal  among  Baptists.  In 
most  cases — and  happily  they  are  few — the  action 
of  the  church  is  all  that  is  required.  If  the  doc- 
trinal or  moral  lapse  is  clear  and  involves  no  diffi- 
culty and  no  disturbing  personal  issues  the  church 


212  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

deposes  and  excludes  the  offender,  and  the  denomi- 
nation and  the  public  are  saved  the  annoyance  and 
mortification  of  trials  for  heresy  or  evil  conduct. 
In  some  cases  a  church  may  ask  a  minister  to  cease 
his  functions,  surrendering  whatever  credentials  he 
may  possess  in  the  way  of  an  ordination  certificate 
or  minutes  of  record,  and  still  retain  the  brother  as 
a  member  of  the  church.  This  would  be  in  case  it 
was  unfitness  rather  than  a  more  serious  disqualifi- 
cation for  the  work  of  the  ministry.  Further,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  ev'en  when  a  council  or 
the  association  acts  in  a  case  of  ministerial  dis- 
cipline the  church  is  the  final  court,  its  action  is 
necessary  to  carry  out  any  recommendation  that 
may  be  made.  As  the  church  ordains,  so  the  church 
deposes  and  disciplines.  Why,  then,  have  a  council 
at  all?  it  may  be  asked.  Several  occasions  may 
arise.  If  the  case  is  one  of  special  difficulty,  or  the 
offender  is  a  prominent  man,  or  the  affair  is  compli- 
cated with  personal  or  partisan  rancor,  or  if  the 
offender  or  his  friends  insist  on  a  council  for  fair- 
ness, the  church  may  deem  it  best  to  call  to  its  aid 
the  counsel  of  judicious  and  trusted  brethren  beyond 
its  own  membership.  Further  occasion  arises  for  a 
council  when  a  church  may  have  acted  too  hastily 
in  the  discipline  of  a  minister,  and  he  feeling  ag- 
grieved may  wish  to  appeal  to  a  larger  circle  of  his 
brethren.  In  this  case  either  the  church  itself  might 
be  induced  to  call  a  council  in  the  interests  of  fair 
play  and  seek  to  justify  its  discipline  in  the  eyes 
of  the  brotherhood  at  large,  or  the  aggrieved  party 
or  his  friends  might  ask  other  churches  in  the 
vicinity   to  review  the  case  bv   calling  a   council. 


ADVISORY  COUNCILS.  213 

Other  kinds  of  cases  may  be  supposed,  but  it  is 
gratifying  to  say  that  the  resort  to  councils  for  the 
discipline  of  ministers  is  of  rare  occurrence,  the 
voluntary  action  of  the  offenders  themselves  and  the 
discipline  of  local  churches  being  commonly  found 
amply  suflScient.  It  is  unnecessary  to  describe  the 
procedure  of  these  councils — they  organize,  con- 
sider, report  and  adjourn  according  to  what  is  re- 
quired in  each  case. 

We  pass  on  to  consider  those  councils  which  re- 
late to  the  churches  themselves.  Of  these  again  there 
are  two  kinds:  those  which  deal  with  the  organiza- 
tion and  recognition  of  churches,  and  those  which 
deal  with  troubles  arising  in  the  churches.  The  first 
sort  has  been  fully  considered  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter, and  so  we  hav^e  here  to  describe  those  which  are 
called  to  aid  in  the  settlement  of  church  difficulties. 
It  will  help  clearness  to  consider  separately  the 
cases  of  trouble  between  different  churches  and  those 
which  arise  within  one  church.  In  both  kinds  of 
cases  councils  are  often  found  very  helpful  and  effi- 
cient. 

Troubles  arise  between  different  churches  in  va- 
rious ways.  Sometimes  it  is  o^^r  matters  of  doctrine 
or  practice,  when  one  church  regards  another  as  de- 
parting from  the  teachings  of  the  Scripture,  or  from 
the  commonly  accepted  tenets  of  the  denomination, 
and  considers  the  departure  serious  enough  to  bring 
before  the  general  brotherhood.  Sometimes  it  is 
over  matters  of  discipline,  when  one  church  inter- 
feres in  some  way  with  the  disciplinary  rights  of  an- 
other, as  by  receiving  an  excluded  person  without 
permission  of  the  excluding  church.     Sometimes  it 


214  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

is  over  property,  where  churches  may  have  common 
or  conflicting  interests.  In  such  cases  a  council  is 
simply  a  method  of  arbitrating  between  sovereigns, 
or,  where  one  party  refuses  to  arbitrate,  a  method 
of  rebuking  by  public  opinion  an  offending  sover- 
eign. In  some  cases  the  association  takes  action. 
When  notice  is  brought  by  a  church  a  committee  is 
appointed,  investigates  and  reports.  If  the  offense 
is  serious  the  association  ''disfellowships''  the  of- 
fending church — that  is,  refuses  to  receive  its  mes- 
sengers as  members  of  the  body,  and  thus  declines 
to  recognize  the  body  as  a  true  Baptist  church. 
Yet  other  cases  occur  when  appeal  is  made  to  the 
civil  courts.  This  naturally  comes  about  when  prop- 
erty rights  are  involved,  or  other  matters  in  which 
the  civil  powers  have  jurisdiction.  But  here  also 
there  is  veryrare  occasion  for  action.  The  churches 
usually  settle  their  differences  either  by  mutual  con- 
ference, or,  if  that  fails,  by  a  council. 

A  council  may  be  either  mutual,  both  parties  unit- 
ing in  the  call,  or  ex  parte,  when  only  one  calls  the 
council  for  advice.  The  first  is  decidedly  preferable, 
where  it  can  be  arranged,  and  it  is  also  well  if  both 
churches  will  agree  beforehand  to  accept  the  de- 
cision of  the  council  as  final  and  to  act  accordingly. 
Otherwise,  as  these  councils  are  purely  advisory  and 
have  no  power  whatever  to  enforce  their  decisions, 
their  work  may  be  entirely  useless  and  even  compli- 
cate the  trouble  which  they  seek  to  adjust.  In  the 
ex  parte  council  th6  case  is  different.  The  aggrieved 
church  simply  seeks  the  advice  of  other  churches  or 
leading  brethren  as  to  what  its  conduct  should  be  in 
a  case  of  grievance  against  a  sister  church.     The 


ADVISORY  COUNCILS.  215 

council  may  consist  of  certain  individuals  selected 
by  the  calling  church  or  churches ;  or  those  who  call 
for  the  council  may  request  other  churches  to  select 
and  send  some  of  their  members  to  sit  in  council 
with  others  so  selected.  In  cases  of  grave  impor- 
tance this  course  is  desirable,  as  securing  greater 
weight  and  generality  of  opinion ;  but  ordinarily  a 
few  carefully  chosen  and  experienced  men  can  settle 
the  matter.  The  number,  of  course,  would  depend 
on  circumstances  and  would  vary.  The  procedure 
calls  for  no  description — the  council  organizes,  con- 
siders, advises  and  adjourns  as  it  sees  best. 

The  remaining  cases  for  action  by  councils  are 
those  of  troubles  arising  within  one  church.  When 
such  factional  disputes  occur,  and  cannot  be  settled 
within  the  church  itself,  three  courses  are  open : 
(1)  Neighboring  churches,  distressed  at  the  condi- 
tions, may  endeavor  to  heal  the  dispute  by  volun- 
tarily calling  a  council  to  interfere.  Or  the  asso- 
ciation may  take  such  action.  But  this  sort  of  case 
is  not  likely  to  happen.  (2)  When  a  church  is  di- 
vided both  parties  may  agree  to  call  a  mutual  coun- 
cil and  abide  by  its  verdict.  This  is  much  the  best 
way.  (3)  One  faction  may  call  an  ex  parte  council 
for  advice.  This  has  sometimes  to  be  done,  but  it  is 
better  avoided  if  possible.  These  councils  are  called 
and  conducted  in  a  similar  manner  to  those  already 
considered. 

All  the  councils  heretofore  mentioned  are  occa- 
sional bodies,  called  to  meet  special  emergencies  and 
adjourning  when  their  work  is  done.  In  some  quar- 
ters it  has  been  felt  that  certain  churches  in  a  defi- 
nite region  mieht  find  it  well  for  their  own  con- 


216  POIJTY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

venieiice  to  constitute  a  permanent  council  consist- 
ing of  members  selected  by  the  respective  churches 
for  certain  terms  of  office,  and  holding  meetings 
stated  or  special  according  to  plan.  This  body 
would  have  only  advisory  powers,  as  other  Baptist 
bodies,  but  would  prove  serviceable  in  various  ways, 
saving  the  trouble  of  calling  special  councils  for  or- 
dinations and  other  occasions  requiring  concerted 
action.  Such  a  council  exists  among  the  churches 
of  New  York  City  and  perhaps  other  cities.  It 
doubtless  has  some  desirable  features,  but  on  the 
whole  is  not  likely  to  become  an  established  insti- 
tution among  Baptists.  It  lacks  the  spontaneity 
and  freshness  of  an  occasional  meeting  and  tends 
to  routine;  it  limits  selection,  at  least  for  a  time, 
and  puts  into  the  hands  of  a  fixed  set  of  brethren 
for  that  time  affairs  that  might  demand  more  lib- 
erty of  choice;  and  it  contains  a  slight  menace  to 
freedom  in  thus  erecting  a  permanent  body,  though 
only  advisory  and  declarative,  to  take  cognizance 
of  matters  requiring  concerted  action.  Baptists  are 
jealous  of  the  perfect  liberty  and  independence  of 
their  churches,  and  they  make  very  sparing  use  of 
councils,  except  in  cases  of  ordination,  which  are 
naturally  of  frequent  occurr-ence. 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  217 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XITI. 

MUTUAL  RELATIONS   OF   BAPTIST   CHURCHES. 

I.  General  bearing  on  denominational  life. 

1.  Denominational  character. 

2.  Denominational  unity. 

3.  Denominational  prosperity. 

4.  Denominational  efficiency. 

II.  Problems  of  adjustment, 

1.  How     secure     unity     of     doctrine     without 

authority  to  impose  it? 

2.  How  have  unity  of  organization  and  move- 

ment without  a  directing  head? 

3.  How  have  sympathetic  and  loving  cohesion 

among  so  diverse  elements? 

4.  How  secure  effective  co-operation  in  general 

denominational  work? 

III.  Methods  of  combination. 

1.  The  associations. 

2.  State  conventions,  or  general  associations. 

3.  General  conventions  and  societies. 

4.  Various  other  bodies. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  OF  TODAY. 
THEIR   MUTUAL  RELATIONS. 

Each  Baptist  church  is  a  separate  organism,  a 
unit,  independent  in  its  life  and  self-governed  in  its 
constitution ;  but  it  is  evident  that  the  Baptist 
churches  as  a  sum  of  units  have  important  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  and  that  these  churches  sepa- 
rately and  collectively  have  important  relations  to 
other  Christians  and  to  the  world  about  them.  These 
relations  are  a  great  force  in  moulding  the  char- 
acter and  determining  the  duties  of  the  separate 
churches.  While  there  is  no  general  organization, 
or  even  aggregation,  of  which  it  is  proper  to  speak 
collectively  as  ''the  Baptist  church,"  yet  the  inde- 
pendent churches  are,  as  bodies  of  like  faith  and 
order,  bound  together  in  highly  important  mutual 
relations.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  chapter 
to  deal  with  these  relations  in  their  general  bearing 
on  denominational  life;  to  consider  the  problems  of 
adjustment  presented  by  them;  and  to  describe 
briefly  the  various  methods  by  which  these  mutual 
interests  find  organic  expression  among  Baptists. 

It  is  evident  that  the  reciprocal  relations  of  Bap- 
tist churches  must  have  a  bearing  upon  the  life  and 
work  of  the  denomination  as  a  whole.  The  denomi- 
national character  is  vitally  concerned.  The  char- 
acter of  a  family,  of  a  home,  of  a  community,  of  a 

218 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  21^ 

business  firm,  is  profoundly  influenced  by  the  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  members  of  each,  respec- 
tively. So  the  connection  of  the  Baptist  churches 
with  each  other  may  seriously  affect  the  character 
of  the  denomination  in  several  important  regards, 
e.  g.,  each  church  in  the  denomination  is  helped  or 
hindered  by  the  influence  of  its  sisters  in  regard  to 
its  purity,  its  discipline  and^  its  effectiveness  as  a 
working  body.  Besides  all  this,  the  character  of 
the  denomination  as  it  impresses  itself  on  the  world, 
is  largely  determined  by  the  regard  which  the  sep- 
arate churches  entertain  for  each  other,  and  by 
their  union  and  harmony'. 

Again,  it  is  obvious  that  the  way  in  which  the 
churches  are  associated  together  ver}'  profoundly 
influences  the  denominational  unity.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  independence  of  the  local  churches,  there  is 
such  a  thing  among  Baptists  as  denominational 
unity.  Without  any  great  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion, they  are  a  definite  body  of  Christians,  and  not 
a  mere  mob  of  heterogeneous  societies  and  indi- 
viduals. This  unity  is  not  focalized  in  any  visible 
institution,  but  is  rather  diffused  through  the  mass. 
It  is  not  a  forced  external  uniformity,  but  a  free 
coherence  which  admits  of  well-nigh  infinite  minor 
variation.  Moreover,  this  unity  is  vital;  that  is,  it 
pertains  to  the  essential  things  of  denominational 
life.  It  shows  itself  in  the  common  doctrine  of  all 
the  Baptist  churches,  which,  though  not  formulated 
into  any  established  creed,  is  yet  well  understood, 
both  among  the  Baptists  themselves  and  their  fel- 
low Christians.  It  is  further  exemplified  in  the 
spirit  of  the  denomination.    Baptists  are  known,  as 


220  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

other  sects  of  Christians  are,  bj  the  general  spirit 
which  characterizes  them  as  a  body.  Furthermore, 
the  history  of  the  denomination  is  a  well-defined  and 
separate  history.  And  in  addition  to  all,  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  denomination  are  peculiar. 

Looking  at  the  matter  from  still  another  point 
of  view,  we  may  say  that  the  denominational 
prosperity  is  essentiaUy  bound  up  in  the  affinities 
of  the  churches.  As  the  health  of  the  human  body 
depends  in  a  large  measure  upon  the  sympathetic 
connections  of  the  vital  parts  with  each  other  and 
with  the  whole,  so  is  it  here.  The  prosperity  and 
growth  of  the  whole  denomination,  as  well  as  of  the 
separate  churches  which  compose  it,  are  vitally  in- 
fluenced by  the  way  in  which  the  separate  churches 
stand  related  to  each  other.  Now  all  that  has  been 
said  converges  on  the  point  of  denominational  efp,- 
ciency;  for  it  is  clear  at  a  glance  that  this  very 
greatly  depends  upon  the  mutual  relations  of  the 
churches.  The  Baptists  are  a  vigorous  body  of 
Christians,  a  powerful  force  in  the  world,  and  their 
power  is  extending  and  multiplying  in  all  the  earth, 
but  by  no  means  do  they  measure  up  to  the  height  of 
their  duty  and  of  their  capacity  in  this  respect.  Per- 
haps it  would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  crown- 
ing reproach  of  the  Baptists  as  a  people,  and  their 
most  conscientiously  recognized  fault,  is  their  lack 
of  efficiency  as  a  body.  Now.  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Baptist  churches,  like  other  things,  is  a  matter  of 
parts  and  a  whole;  for  it  vitally  depends  on  the 
proper  relations  of  these  parts  to  each  other.  In  as- 
serting and  maintaining  their  independency,  Bap- 
tists have  allowed  themselves  to  overlook  and  neglect 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  221 

too  much  the  power  of  united  effort  and  harmonious 
co-operation.  The  somewhat  stately  language  of 
the  fathers  in  organizing  the  Baptists  in  our  coun- 
try for  foreign  mission  work  should  often  be  in 
mind:  it  was  to  "elicit,  combine  and  direct  the 
energies  of  the  whole  denomination  in  one  sacred 
effort  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel." 

In  studying  the  relations  of  the  churches  to  each 
other,  we  meet  some  serious  problems.  The  question 
is  how  to  adjust  these  inter-relations  in  such  ways 
as  to  secure  the  best  results.  In  considering  the 
connection  with  each  other  of  independent  Baptist 
churches  we  must  inquire  whether  those  relations 
shall  be,  or  can  be,  merely  sentimental  and  vague, 
or  whether  they  must  not  rather  be  practical  and 
definite.  If  they  must  assume  visible  and  active 
form,  by  whom  shall  they  be  organized  and  directed? 
We  answer  at  once,  By  the  churches  themselves; 
but  the  question  still  forces  itself  upon  us,  How  is 
it  to  be  done?  Here  an  ounce  of  experience  is  worth 
a  ton  of  theory,  and  Baptist  history  delivers  a  de- 
finite answer:  The  union  of  Baptists  must  rest 
upon  the  basis  of  vital  sympathy,  and  this  will  be 
the  outgrowth  of  contact,  conference  and  combina- 
tion. This  last  is  the  main  thing,  and  so  the  great 
Baptist  problem  is  the  problem  of  combinaltion. 
How  can  effective  unity  be  secured  without  preju- 
dice to  the  interests  and  rights  of  the  individual 
churches  ? 

We  gladly  concede  the  great  advantages  of  such 
unity.  But  some  questions  of  interest  and  difficulty 
arise.  How  can  there  be  unity  of  doctrine  without 
an  authority  to  impose  it?    In  answering  this  ques- 


322  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tion,  we  must  distinguish  between  absolute  uni- 
formity and  a  substantial  agreement,  between  an 
enforced  formula  and  a  oneness  of  spirit.  For  in- 
structive warnings  as  to  the  result  of  any  externally 
imposed  doctrinal  authority,  we  may  take  an  ob- 
servant look  at  the  old  corpse  of  the  Greek  Church, 
which  has  made  no  advance  in  any  material  direc- 
tion for  upwards  of  a  thousand  years, — a  dead 
orthodoxy,  an  outworn  credal  uniformity.  We  may 
also  notice  the  Roman  Church.  It  is  outwardly  en- 
slaved to  the  hard-and-fast  dogmas  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  and  to  the  utterances  of  some  later 
authorities ;  but  underneath  this  outward  and  seem- 
ing uniformity,  enforced  as  it  apparently  is  by  the 
Vatican  decree  of  papal  infallibility,  it  is  an  open 
secret  that  there  is  much  diversity  of  real  sentiment 
among  the  thinking  minds  within  the  pale  of  the 
Catholic  communion.  In  the  very  nature  of  things, 
no  external  human  authority  can  ever  impose  from 
without  an  unalterable  creed  on  thinking  men.  If 
the  unity  is  not  of  the  spirit,  if  it  is  not  a  free  unity, 
it  cannot  be  real.  Among  the  Protestant  bodies 
which  appear  to  have  a  greater  doctrinal  unity  than 
that  which  prevails  among  the  Baptists,  we  often 
see  tokens  of  disagreement.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  in  America  has  had  in  recent  years  its  sharp 
trials  growing  out  of  the  different  views  held  even 
under  the  outward  supremacy  of  the  Westminster 
Confession.  Unity  of  doctrine  can  never  be  forced 
upon  Baptists  by  any  external  ecclesiastical 
authority, — that  would  be  the  idlest  of  idle  dreams. 
It  is  to  be  a  unity  of  the  spirit,  of  freedom,  or  none 
at  all. 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  223 

Another  question  is,  How  can  there  be  unity  of 
organization  and  movement  without  a  head  to  direct 
it?  The  difficulty  here  seems  to  be  even  greater  than 
that  last  noticed.  Again,  however,  we  adduce  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  as  a  consplcious  illustra- 
tion. With  one  head  to  their  great  hierarchy,  they 
do  carry  on  a  w^onderfully  well  organized  work,  and 
their  efficiency  might  seem  a  rebuke  to  all  loosely 
associated  bodies.  But  again  we  may  fairly  raise 
the  question  whether  the  efficiency  is  not  gained  at 
the  sacrifice  of  true  Christian  independence,  which 
is  worth  infinitely  more  than  any  centralized  earthly 
combination.  Among  Protestants  we  may  compare 
with  the  Baptist  churchies  the  compactness  and 
power  of  the  Methodist  Church.  In  admiring  the 
system  and  energy  which  characterize  the  Metho- 
dists, let  us  not  overlook  the  fact  that  often  both 
their  churches,  and  individuals  here  and  there,  pro- 
test vigorously  w^hen  their  independence  is  invaded 
by  the  power  of  the  governing  body.  Perhaps  they 
show  a  greater  efficiency  in  actual  work,  but  do  they 
not  lose  a  certain  freeness  and  spontaneity?  And 
is  there  not  too  much  machinery  and  too  little  real 
Christian  independence?  We  must  emphasize  the 
fact  that  centralized  power  is  ever  a  menace  to  free- 
dom. This  has  been  the  history  of  human  nature 
both  in  political  and  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  no 
right-minded  Baptist  will  ever  desire,  or  seek,  a 
refuge  from  lack  of  denominational  efficiency  in  any 
centralized  power  lording  it  over  the  conscience.  Be- 
sides, we  devoutly  and  boldly  maintain  that 'in  a 
free  organization  there  may  be  a  unity  of  spirit  and 


224  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

action  which  can  be  cherished,  promoted  and  main- 
tained within  the  free  organism  itself. 

Another  question  is,  How  can  there  be  sympathetic 
and  loving  cohesion  among  so  many  diverse  ele- 
ments? Our  answer  to  this  is  that  the  problem 
is  indeed  difficult.  We  can  only  mourn  that 
oftentimes  there  are  jars  and  disagreements;  but 
upon  the  whole  the  Baptist  churches  do  entertain 
for  each  other  a  true  Christian  charity  and  affec- 
tion. It  is  perhaps  not  invidious  to  say  that  the  dew 
of  Hermon  sheds  its  softening  influences  upon  the 
Baptist  churches  about  as  much  as  upon  other 
bodies  where  there  is  a  greater  appearance  of  unity ; 
and  the  ointment  which  ran  down  the  beard  is  per- 
haps no  less  fragrant  among  Baptist  Aarons  than 
among  those  of  other  Christian  families. 

The  remaining  question  has  already  in  a  measure 
been  considered.  How  can  there  be  effective  co-opera- 
tion in  practical  Christian  work?  It  has  already 
been  conceded  that  here  lies  the  greatest  failure 
among  Baptists,  but  in  making  such  a  concession, 
we  do  not  at  all  admit  a  total  failure.  Baptist 
educational  institutions  dot  the  land,  their  missions 
at  home  and  abroad  have  done  a  great  and  glorious 
work,  and  while  they  are  ashamed  that  they  have 
not  done  more,  they  have  a  right  to  rejoice  in  what 
has  been  accomplished.  So  much  for  the  problems. 
Let  us  turn  now  to  consider  the  methods  of  combina- 
tion which  are  in  vogue  among  the  Baptists. 

First,  we  take  up  the  associations.  These  bodies 
arose  in  the  early  history  of  the  Baptists  in  Eng- 
land and  this  country,  and  they  have  been  ever  since 
a  well-established  Baptist  institution.     They  have 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  225 

no  ecclesiastical  authority  whatsoever.  They  are 
not  composed  of  churches  as  such,  but  only  of  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches,  sent  to  confer  together  upon 
matters  of  mutual  and  common  interest.  These  mes- 
sengers are  sometimes  called  delegates,  but  this  is 
not  an  accurate  designation ;  for  they  hold  no  dele- 
gated authority  to  act  for  their  respective  churches. 
Sometimes  they  go  to  the  association  with  instruc- 
tions how  to  act  in  any  given  case ;  but  they  have  no 
general  delegated  authority.  The  original  objects 
of  the  association  were  to.  take  fraternal  counsel  as 
to  the  state  of  the  various  associated  churches,  to 
promote  social  intercourse  among  their  ministry  and 
members,  and  to  hold  meetings  for  preaching  and 
prayer.  Very  often  queries  were  sent  up  and  pro- 
posed by  the  various  churches  bearing  upon  the  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture,  or  upon  some  practical 
difficulty  connected  with  church  life.  The  associa- 
tion passed  no  laws  upon  these  points,  but  upon 
mature  deliberation  and  discussion,  gave  their 
opinion  and  advice.  Now  things  are  much  changed. 
The  social  feature  remains  much  the  sajne,  but 
there  is  a  severe  strain  upon  hospitality;  and  it  is 
probable  that  there  is  not  quite  so  much  worship 
and  devotion  in  the  social  intercourse  connected 
with  Baptist  associations  as  there  was  in  older 
times.  Preaching  is  not  now  so  prominent  a  feature 
of  associational  meetings.  Often  it  is  addressed 
chiefly  to  the  neighborhood  crowd  out  of  doors  while 
the  association  continues  to  hold  its  sessions  in- 
side the  church.  In  some  quarters  in  connection 
with  the  meetings  of  the  associations  a  gi-eat  deal  of 
gayety  and  mere  sociability  has  been  the  order  of 


2-26  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  day.  But  if  anything  a  sadder  change  has  come 
in  the  transaction  of  the  business  within  the  bodies 
themselves.  In  our  days  the  state  of  the  churches 
receives  scant  attention.  The  reading  of  the  letters 
is  often  considered  a  bore,  and  there  is  a  growing 
tendency  to  refer  this  whole  matter  to  a  "committee 
on  digest  of  letters."  One  would  suppose  from  the 
way  in  which  this  important  matter  is  disposed  of 
that  the  churches  do  not  really  feel  any  deep  in- 
terest in  each  other's  welfare,  but  that  the  associa- 
tions from  force  of  habit  and  tradition  were  simply 
preserving  a  form  of  godliness,  having  denied  the 
power  thereof.  Another  old  practice  before  alluded 
to,  was  that  of  sending  up  queries  on  matters  of 
doctrine  and  practice.  In  some  parts  of  the  coun- 
try ministers'  and  deacons'  meetings,  or  union  meet- 
ings, as  they  are  sometimes  called,  took  up  the  prac- 
tice of  considering  such  questions,  and  possibly  in 
that  way,  as  well  as  by  the  pressure  of  other  busi- 
ness, the  custom  has  gone  out  of  observance.  A 
moderate  renewal  of  this  time-honored  landmark 
might  be  of  service  now.  Many  things  might  be  ad- 
duced to  account  for  the  change  which  has  come 
over  these  associational  gatherings.  It  may  be  that 
the  principal  cause  lies  in  the  changed  conditions  of 
our  modern  Christian  life.  The  State  conventions 
and  general  conventions,  presently  to  be  considered, 
were  formed  for  the  special  purpose  of  advancing 
missions  and  education,  and  as  these  objects  require 
the  raising  of  money,  they  began  to  send  represen 
tatives  to  the  associational  meetings,  and  so  the 
churches  and  their  messengers  and  pastors,  to- 
gether  with   the   visiting   brethren,    have    in    these 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  227 

latter  times  given  more  attention  to  co-operation 
with  the  larger  bodies,  and  to  the  consideration  of 
financial  questions,  than  they  have  to  those  ques- 
tions which  were  paramount  in  the  earlier  history 
of  associations. 

We  next  come  to  consider  the  State  Conventions, 
or    General    Associations.     These    are    of    course 
peculiar  to  the  United  States,  growing  out  of  our 
territorial  divisions.     These  bodies  were  formed  to 
promote  within  the  bounds  of  the  several   States 
general    denominational  enterprises,   such   as   mis- 
sions,   education    and    charities.     Thus,    they    are 
chiefly  concerned  with  the  raising  and  disbursement 
of  money,  and  with  the  management  by  boards  of 
trust  of  the  various  denominational  agencies  in  the 
different   States.     Their  relation   to  other  matters 
of  denominational  interest  is  only  incidental.   While 
they  often  pass  resolutions  upon  any  subject  ger- 
mane to  their  work,   or  seeming  to   require   some 
notice  from  the  representatives  of  the  denomination, 
their  main  business  has  been,  and  continues  to  be, 
the  fostering  of  such  institutions  as  have  been  men- 
tioned.   They  have  proved  to  be  very  useful  bodies, 
and  have  done  a  great  work.     It  scarcely  needs  to 
be  said  that  they  have  no  jurisdiction  whatever  over 
the  churches.     Like  the  associations,  they  are  com- 
posed not  of  churches  as  such,  but  only  of  persons 
sent  by  the  churches  to  consider  the  interests  of  the 
denomination.    They  only  represent  the  churches  in 
a  moral  and  collective  sense,  not  in  any  ecclesias- 
tical or  legal  capacity.     The  basis  of  membership 
of  these  bodies  differs  in  different  Statx^s.     Usually 
the  churches  are  entitled  to  representatives  accord- 


228  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

ing  to  the  amounts  they  contribute  to  the  mis- 
sionary, charitable  and  educational  institutions. 
Sometimes  societies  within  the  churches  have  the 
right  of  representation,  and  sometimes  even  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  churches. 

Passing  from  these  State  organizations,  we  come 
to  the  general  Conventions  and  Societies  of  the  de- 
nomination in  the  United  States.  These  great 
bodies,  uniting  larger  sections  of  the  denomination 
than  those  already  discussed,  are  in  their  origin 
and  work  the  response  of  the  Baptists  to  the  mis- 
sionary call.  Specially  organized  to  promote  foreign 
missions,  they  have  gradually  taken  hold  of  other 
things  also,  without  departing  from  their  original 
intention.  The  general  bodies  in  England  and  other 
countries  have  their  peculiar  names  and  enterprises, 
as  the  Baptist  Missionary  Society  of  England, 
founded  by  Fuller  and  Carey  in  1792.  In  the  north- 
ern part  of  the  United  States  there  are  three  great 
Societies,  the  Missionary  Union  for  foreign  mis- 
sions, the  Home  Missionary' Society  for  missions  in 
North  America,  and  the  Publication  Society.  In 
connection  with  these  there  are  also  special  organi- 
zations of  the  women  for  home  and  foreign  mis- 
sions. Membership  in  these  societies  is  on  the  finan- 
cial basis.  The  three  Societies  usually  meet  in  the 
same  place  and  their  exercises  follow  each  other  in 
rotation.  These  meetings  are  called  the  Anni- 
versaries, and  they  occupy  several  days,  or  a  week, 
usually  in  the  month  of  May. 

In  the  southern  part  of  the  United  States,  there 
is  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  organized  in 
1845.     This  body  has  its  three  Boards,  or  general 


THEIR  MUTUAL  RELATIONS.  229 

committees,  one  for  foreign  missions  located  in 
Richmond,  Va.,  one  for  home  missions  in  Atlanta, 
Ga.,  and  one  for  Sunday-schools  in  Nashville,  Tenn. 
These  Boards,  which  are  really  only  standing  com- 
mittees of  the  Convention,  transact  the  business  in- 
dicated bj'  their  names  in  the  interim  of  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Convention.  The  Convention  meets 
annually,  receives  reports  from  its  various  Boards 
and  directs  their  Avork  for  the  following  year. 
Auxiliary  to  the  Convention  is  the  Women's  Mis- 
sionary Union,  which  meets  at  the  same  time  and 
}>lace.  The  Convention  is  also  vitally  connected  with 
the  Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary  at  Louis- 
ville. Kentucky,  receiving  reports  from  the  institu- 
tion and  having  the  right  to  nominate  trustees  to  till 
vacancies  as  they  occur.  Representation  in  the 
body  is  according  to  contributions  made  to  the  two 
Boards  for  home  and  foreign  missions.  Of  late 
years  the  various  associations  in  the  territory'  of  the 
Convention  have  been  permitted  to  choose  each  a 
representative,  apart  from  the  financial  considera- 
tion. As  said  before,  these  societies  and  conven- 
tions have  no  control  whatever  over  the  churches. 
They  are  simply  voluntary  associations  of  Bap- 
tists maintained  on  plans  of  their  own  for  the 
prosecution  of  great  Christian  work  at  home  and 
abroad.  Like  the  State  conventions,  they  repre- 
sent the  churches  only  in  a  derived  sense,  not  ac- 
tually. Besides  these  there  are  some  other  general 
bodies  which  might  be  mentioned,  such  as  the 
National  Educational  Society  and  the  \A\)men's  So- 
cieties spoken  of  before,  and  the  Baptist  Young 
People's  Union;  all  of  which  are  voluntary  societies. 


230  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

of  the  classes  specified,  for  the  purposes  of  Chris- 
tian work.  There  are  also  other  "societies," 
"unions,"  "meetings,"  "conventions,"  "congresses," 
"conferences,"  "committees,"  and  the  like.  These 
have  special  objects  of  local  or  general  interest,  and 
like  the  permanent  bodies,  they  are  in  no  sense  eccle- 
siastical, or  authoritative,  assemblies. 

In  May,  1905,  a  number  of  representative  Bap- 
tists from  all  parts  of  the  country  met  in  the  city 
of  St.  Louis  and  organized  "The  General  Baptist 
Convention  of  North  America,"  to  meet  tri-ennially 
for  conference  upon  matters  of  general  interest,  but 
with  no  purpose  to  change  or  supersede  the  existing 
organizations.  Churches,  associations,  conventions, 
and  societies  will  appoint  the  messengers. 

In  July  of  the  same  year  a  "World's  Congi'ess"  of 
Baptists  assembled  in  London,  consisting  of  repre- 
sentatives from  all  over  the  world.  Greetings  and 
speeches  characterized  the  large  assemblies,  and 
steps  were  taken  toward  the  organization  of  a  "Bap- 
tist World  Alliance,"  to  meet  once  in  five  years  for 
conference  and  fraternal  intercourse. 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION.  231 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XIV. 

CHRISTIAN  UNION  AND  THE  BAPTISTS. 

I.  What  is  Christian  union? 

1.  Doctrinal. 

2.  Organic. 

3.  Co-operative. 

4.  Spiritnal. 

II.  The  Baptist  position. 

1.  Application  of  preceding : 

(1)  Doctrinal,    possible    only    on    basis    of 
Scripture  rule  of  faith. 

(2)  Organic,  possible  only  on  basis  of  pre- 
ceding. 

(3)  Co-operative,  practicable  to  some  extent. 

(4)  Spiritual,  greatly  to  be  desired. 

2.  Bodies  with  which  such  union  may  be  had. 

(1)  Denominational         organizations,         or 
churches. 

(2)  Undenominational  organizations  of  vari- 
ous sorts. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  OF  TODAY, 
THEIR  POSITION  AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION. 

The  relation  of  Baptist  churches  to  other  bodies 
of  professed  Christians  is  one  of  peculiar  interest 
and  importance.  There  are  many  sects  of  Chris- 
tians, called  by  custom  and  courtesy  churches  and 
denominations,  with  which  Baptist  churches  •  have 
more  or  less  in  common,  and  from  which  also  they 
differ  more  or  less  widely.  Very  delicate  and  diffi- 
cult questions  grow  out  of  these  relations,  and  it 
requires  thought,  tact  and  principle  to  adjust  our 
conduct  to  the  needs  of  the  situation.  We  have  of 
course  the  principles  of  the  New  Testament,  but 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  no  clear  precepts,  or 
even  examples,  to  guide  our  conduct.  There  were 
differences  of  opinion  among  the  early  Christians, 
but  no  such  division  into  sects  and  parties  as  is  the 
unhappy  condition  of  the  Christian  world  to-day. 
The  divisions  among  Christians,  especially  in  free 
countries  like  ours,  are  very  many.  It  is  easy  to 
exaggerate  the  real  evils  of  sectarianism  and  the 
fancied  glories  of  Christian  union,  but  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  easy  to  depreciate  both  and  to  rest  in  a 
state  of  endless  and  minute  sectarian  varieties,  as 
if  these  were  the  normal,  or  at  least  the  inevitable, 
state  of  Christians.     The  enthusiast  for  unity  on 

232 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION.  233 

the  one  side,  and  the  bigoted  sectarian  on  the  other, 
must  be  our  monitory  extremes,  while  we  attempt 
to  hold  the  safe,  conservative,  middle  way.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  the  idea  of  union  among 
Christians  has  been  growing  for  many  years,  and 
that  the  sharpness  and  asperity  of  denominational 
polemics  have  been  much  softened.  There  is  a 
warmer  feeling,  a  more  generous  toleration  among 
the  sects  toward  each  other  than  was  the  case  a  few 
generations  ago.  Much  has  been  written  on  the 
subject  of  Christian  union,  and  it  behooves  us  to 
give  earnest  and  prayerful  consideration  to  this 
great  matter.  In  188G  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  America,  in  session  at  Chicago, 
sent  forth  proposals  for  Christian  union.  These 
overtures  were  afterward  amended  by  the  bishops  of 
the  Church  of  England,  in  a  conference  held  at 
Lambeth,  in  1888.  They  are  sometimes  called  the 
Quadrilateral,  or  four  articles  of  church  unity.  They 
are  as  follows  :* 

"1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  as  containing  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation,  and  as  being  the  rule  and  legitimate  stan- 
dard of  faith. 

"2.  The  Apostles'  Creed  as  the  baptismal  symbol, 
and  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufiScient  statement  of 
the  Christian  faith. 

''3.  The  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  him- 
self— Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord — ad- 
ministered with  the  unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words 
of  institution  and  all  the  elements  ordained  by  him. 

''4.  The   historic   episcopate,    locally    adapted    in 

*  Shields'  United  Church  of  the  United  Stales,  p.  82. 


234  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying 
needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples,  called  of  God  into 
the  unity  of  his  church." 

These  proposals  called  forth  much  discussion  in 
many  of  the  denominational  bodies,  as  well  as  in  the 
periodicals  of  the  various  churches.  The  Southern 
Baptist  Convention,  at  its  session  at  Fort  Worth, 
Texas,  in  May,  1890,  adopted  resolutions  proposing 
the  Scriptures  as  the  one  rule  of  faith,  and  stating 
that  in  order  to  secure  anything  like  proper 
grounds  of  union  the  various  assemblies  should  ap- 
point representative  men  to  meet  and  consider  on 
what  basis  substantial  agreement  among  the  lead- 
ing denominations  might  be  reached.  Such  move- 
ments as  these  show  the  drift  of  thought  in  our  days 
regarding  the  desirability  of  some  sort  of  union 
among  Christians  of  various  names.  Yet  it  must  be 
acknowledged  that  the  proposal  for  Christian  union 
is  somewhat  vague.  Exactly  what  is  to  be  attained 
by  it  has  not  been  made  very  clear.  It  is  more  a 
sentiment  than  a  well-defined  and  commanding  pur- 
pose. In  this  discussion  it  is  desired  to  define  and 
clarify  the  rather  vague  ideas  as  to  Christian  union, 
and  to  consider  the  proper  attitude  of  the  Baptist 
churches,  both  toward  the  other  Christian  sects  and 
toward  certain  undenominational,  but  still  pro- 
fessedly Christian  organizations. 

Is  it  possible  to  get  any  clear  idea  of  what  is  really 
meant  by  the  phrase?  Sometimes  it  seems  hopeless, 
because  of  the  great  variety  of  opinion.  There  is 
more  than  irony  in  the  suggestion  that  the  initial 
impossibility  of  agreeing  as  to  what  Chrisian  union 
is  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  hopeful  sign  of  securing 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN   UNION.  235 

the  thing  itself;  but  we  may  at  least  come  face  to 
face  with  the  inherent  difficulties  of  the  subject,  and 
thus  help  to  clear  the  way  somewhat,  by  considering 
Christian  union  under  the  various  descriptions  of 
doctrinal,  organic,  co-operative  and  spiritual. 

In  regard  to  entire  doctrinal  accord  among  Chris- 
tians, it  is  obvious  at  once  that  no  such  thing  can 
ever  be  obtained  as  long  as  there  is  thought,  or  free- 
dom, in  this  world.  Absolute  identity  of  view 
among  men  on  any  subject  where  there  is  room  for 
difference  of  opinion  is  as  chimerical  as  anything 
can  be ;  and  of  course  the  advocates  of  church  unity 
fully  realize  this.  Professor  Shields  says  (p.  7,) 
"Perfect  consent  in  theological  views,  were  it  at- 
tained between  the  different  denominations,  might 
indeed  issue  in  their  perfect  union,  if  not  in  their 
homogeneous  organization,  since  among  their  doc- 
trines it  would  include  the  same  doctrine  of  church 
polity;  but  it  may  be  doubted  if  such  consent  is  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  attainable."  Theoretically,  it 
would  be  a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished,  if 
all  Christians  should  be  able  to  get  and  hold  all  the 
truth  of  God,  to  see  it  just  alike,  to  combine  it  in 
the  same  systems,  to  express  it  in  the  same  symbols; 
provided  such  a  union  should  be  at  the  same  time 
free,  live  and  genuine;  for  it  had  better  not  be  at 
all  then  to  be  forced,  dead  and  false.  Some  may 
even  question  whether  such  doctrinal  unity,  even  if 
attainable,  would  be  desirable;  yet  we  must  grant 
that,  though  variety  in  unity  is  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired, agreement  upon  truth  is  more  desirable  still. 
If  we  could  know  all  the  truth  upon  any  subject,  it 
would  be  well  that  all  should  know  it.  and  if  all 


236  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

should  know  the  truth,  then  there  would  be  agree- 
ment upon  it,  so  that  we  need  not  say  that  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  matters  of  doctrine  are  de- 
sirable. We  may  only  say  that  as  our  minds  are  at 
present  constituted  they  are  inevitable.  We  believe 
that  one  of  the  glories  of  the  future  state  will  be 
the  clear  perception  of  truths  which  are  now  only 
partially  understood. 

This  matter  may  be  illustrated  in  the  domain  of 
science,  as  well  as  that  of  religion,  Mr.  Lester  F. 
Ward  writes  as  follows  concerning  scientific  truth: 
"The  great  desideratum  is  not  unity  of  opinion,  but 
correctness  of  opinion.  It  is  true  that  the  latter 
embraces  the  former,  but  it  certainly  is  not  true 
that  the  former  embraces  the  latter.  In  making 
correct  opinions  universal,  we  make  all  opinions  on 
the  same  subject  identical,  but  the  latter  result  is 
not  the  end,  it  is  merely  the  incident.  The  end  is 
to  render  opinions  true,  and  this  secured,  the  con- 
sequence may  safely  be  left  to  take  care  of  itself." 
And  again  he  says:  .'"But  it  may  be  said  that  the 
settlement  of  opinion  in  complete  harmony  with 
truth  must  be  dismissed  as  an  impossibility;  that 
such  is  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind  that  all 
cannot  be  made  to  see  truth  from  the  same  point  of 
view,  and  differences  of  opinion  must  needs  exist. 
Practically  this  may  be  true,  but  not  theoretically. 
It  may  be  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  will  always 
be  certain  problems  unsettled,  and  about  whose  so- 
lution different  minds,  though  perhaps  of  equal 
ability,  will  hold  opposite  views.  But  it  is.,  neve- 
theless,  true  that  certain  other  problems  may  be- 
come settled,  and  so  settled  that  they  can   never 


AS  TO  CHRTSTIAX   UNION.  237 

again  be  unsettled."*  What  is  true  of  seience  may 
be  also  in  a  measure  said  concerning  religious 
opinion.  To  know  the  exact  and  complete  truth  is 
surely  desirable,  but  whether  it  is  actually  attain- 
able is  quite  a  different  question. 

The  next  consideration  is  as  to  organic  union. 
Granting  that  there  may  not  be  doctrinal  uniform- 
ity, may  there  not  be  organic  union  of  Christians? 
What  is  true  of  the  individual  members  of  any  local 
church,  and  of  different  local  churches,  in  effecting 
an  organization  upon  the  basis  of  their  agreements 
and  afliuities,  might  presumably  be  true  of  all  the 
Christian    sects    and    denominations;    that    is,    as 
Christians    who    have    different    opinions    may    yet 
unite  in  one  church  because  they  are  more  alike 
than  they  are  unlike,  and  as  different  churches  may 
form  a  great  denomination,  though  these  churches 
do  not  agree  among  themselves  on  every  point  of 
doctrine  or  practice,  so  all   the  denominations  of 
Christians  might  form  a  kind  of  grand  organization 
on  the  basis  of  commonly  accepted  truths  and  for 
the  accomplishment  of  common  ends.    Theoretically 
this  might  come  to  pass,  but  such  an  organization 
of  all  Christians  in  one  body,  even  if  it  were  possi- 
ble, would  necessarily  have  its  limitations,  which 
would  increase  with  the  greater  complexity  of  the 
body.     In  order  to  include  all  Christians  of  what- 
ever name,  the  doctrinal  basis  would  have  to  be  nar- 
rowed down  to  such  leading  generalities  as  to  make 
it  a  vanishing  quantity.     Wherever  the  differences 
of  opinion  and  principle  are  greater  in  number  and 
significance  than  agreements,  no  organization  com- 

*  Dynamic  Sociology,  Vol.  II,  pp.  402,  404. 


238  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

prehending  those  who  hold  these  different  views  can 
be  anything  more  than  nominal.  What  sort  of 
organization  could  bind  together  a  Romanist  and  a 
Presbyterian,  an  Episcopalian  and  a  Baptist,  a 
Methodist  and  a  Congregationalist?  In  some  gen- 
eral respects  all  these  agree,  and  yet  an  organiza- 
tion of  persons  holding  such  diverse  views  in  im- 
portant details  as  these  do,  could  scarcely  be  effect- 
ive, because  its  foundation  on  truth  accepted  by  all 
must  necessarily  be  narrow. 

Again,  it  may  be  asked,  What  purposes  could  a 
grand  organization  of  all  the  Christians  in  the  coun- 
try be  likely  to  effect  which  would  not  be  better 
effected  by  the  different  denominations,  working 
through  their  own  established  institutions  and 
methods?  Find  a  suitable  purpose  for  such  an  or- 
ganization and  get  all  to  agree  on  it,  and  it  might 
in  some  way  come  into  being;  but  where  is  such  a 
unifying  purpose?  What  great  work  or  sentiment, 
apart  from  the  idea  of  unity  itself,  can  ever  have 
such  an  overmastering  influence  as  to  mould  these 
various  denominations  into  one  organic  unity?  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  difficult  to  get  all  the  churches 
and  individuals  of  any  one  denomination  united  on 
one  purpose  within  the  denomination  itself,  and 
the  more  extended  and  varied  in  its  parts  such 
an  organization  becomes,  the  more  difficult  will  it  be 
to  find  for  it  this  unifying  purpose.  Such  a  princi- 
ple of  union  must  be  definite,  it  must  be  practical, 
it  must  be  overpowering.  It  will  not  succeed,  if  it 
be  vague,  sentimental  and  feeble.  It  cannot  be 
made  to  order  simply  with  the  desire  of  securing 
unity  as  a  thing  in  itself  desirable.     It  must  come, 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN   UNION.  239 

if  it  ever  comes  at  all,  from  a  growing  approxima- 
tion in  doctrine,  because  of  a  clearer  apprehension 
of  truth,  and  from  a  growing  concentration  and 
unity  of  effort  in  promoting  the  great  ends  for  which 
the  separate  denominations  are  striving. 

Besides  these  difficulties  concerning  doctrine  and 
purpose,  there  is  another,  namely,  that  of  con- 
venience or  effectiveness.  Even  if  such  organic 
union  or  organization  of  Christians  were  feasible, 
would  it  really  be  desirable?  Would  it  not  be  a 
large,  unwieldy  affair,  crushed  to  death  by  its  own 
weight?  How  could  such  a  great  organic  union  be 
made  effective  if  it  has  no  practical  Christian  pur- 
pose, unless  it  becomes  centralized  as  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church?  It  would  be  a  big,  cumbrous  ma- 
chine unless  strongly  centralized,  and  if  strongly 
centralized,  it  would  become  a  menace  to  freedom. 
Upon  the  whole,  there  seems  to  be  no  need  and  no 
prospect  of  the  union  of  all  the  Christian  sects  in 
one  organized  body,  and  therefore  no  occasion  to 
weep  over  its  absence. 

There  may  be,  however,  various  degrees  and  forms 
of  co-operative  union,  even  though  doctrinal  and 
organic  union  can  scarcely  be  hoped  for.  Grant  a 
common  end,  in  the  pursuit  of  which  there  is  no  sur- 
render of  principle,  no  disloyalty  to  truth,  no  sacri- 
fice of  self-respect,  and  there  may  be,  and- should  be, 
co-operative  union  among  Christians  to  advance 
that  common  end.  Such  a  union  may  be  more  or 
less  general,  according  to  circumstances.  There  are, 
for  example,  some  things  in  which  Protestants  and 
Catholics  may  co-operate  in  certain  localities,  or 
throughout   the   country   at   large.     Here   we   may 


240  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

mention  temperance  reform,  social  purity  leagues, 
and  various  measures  of  local  beneficence;  but  these 
things  are  comparatively  few,  and  may  perhaps  be 
better  advanced  by  the  existing  denominations, 
without  the  union  of  bodies  so  unlike  that  friction 
might  occur.  There  would  be  a  larger  number  of 
purposes  in  which  Protestants  might  unite,  leaving 
out  Catholics ;  and  a  still  wider  area  of  co-operation 
might  be  found  for  two  or  three  of  the  Protestant 
bodies,  according  as  they  approximate  to  each  other 
in  doctrine  and  practice.  Let  all,  or  most,  of  the 
Christians  in  any  district  or  country  find  some  com- 
mon end  which  strongly  calls  for  co-operation,  an 
end  which  can  only  be  reached  in  this  way,  and  in- 
volving no  sacrifice,  no  compromise  of  principle, 
and  who  doubts  that  the  co-operation  would  come? 
But  some  things  proposed  by  the  enthusiastic  advo- 
cates of  church  unity,  as  matters  in  which  different 
Christians  might  co-operate,  seem  to  involve  some 
sacrifice  of  principle,  or  of  loyalty  to  the  scriptural 
revelation.  Froude  somewhere  eloquently'  com- 
mends the  martyrs  in  the  days  of  Bloody  Mary  by 
saying  that  they  went  to  the  stake  because  they 
could  not  be  induced  to  say  that  was  true  which 
they  believed  to  be  untrue;  and  how  can  persons 
for  the  sake  of  a  sentiment  do  what  our  fathers  re- 
fused to  do  in  view  of  the  flaming  fires  of  Smith- 
field?  Various  proposals  in  the  way  of  of  co-opera- 
tive unity  have  been  made,  but  doubtless  they  are 
open  to  man}^  objections  and  practical  diflficulties. 
They  seem  to  be  suggested  mostly  for  the  sake  of 
co-operation  and  unity ;  but  unity  just  for  unity,  and 
co-operation  just  for  co-operation,  would  be  a  sickly, 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION.  241 

sentimental  sort  of  thing  that  would  scarcely  de- 
serve to  live;  for  this  could  be  no  real  unity.  That 
must  be  a  growth  from  within,  or  to  speak  more  ac- 
curately, from  above. 

But  even  if  there  cannot  be  doctrinal  unity,  and 
if  there  ought  not  to  be  organic  unity,  and  if  there 
should  be  only  a  certain  amount  of  co-operative 
unity,  there  ts  ample  need  and  room  left  for  the 
best  of  all — that  is,  spiritual  unity.  That  there  can 
be,  and  that  there  is  among  all  true  Christians,  a 
high  degree  of  spiritual  union,  would  seem  to  be 
evident.  This  spiritual  oneness  consists  in  one  pre- 
eminent thing,  namely,  the  union  of  each  individual 
believer  with  Jesus  Christ,  the  great  Head.  That  it 
should  be  more  deeply  felt  and  more  fully  exempli- 
fied is  the  ideal  of  such  passages  as  John  17:20-23 
and  Eph,  4:1-16.  In  the  first  of  these  our  Lord 
prays,  in  the  well-known  supplication  of  that  last 
night  of  his  life,  that  his  followers  might  be  one; 
and  in  the  other  the  large-minded  and  eloquent 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  speaks  of  the  desirable 
unity  among  Christian  people,  but  it  is  the  "unity 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace." 

This  high  and  highly  spiritual  unity  may  be  pro- 
moted and  illustrated  by  things  common  and  things 
mutual  existing  among  true  followers  of  Christ. 
There  is  common  obedience  to  the  one  Lord,  and 
common  consecration  to  the  one  work  of  his  king- 
dom. These  supremely  spiritual  elements  may 
unite  the  spiritually  minded  to  common  ends,  and 
give  them,  over  their  honest  differences  of  opinion, 
a  truer  unity  than  any  enforced  organization  or  co- 
operation could  ever  achieve.    Growing  out  of  these 


242  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

common  principles  are  two  others  which  expand 
more  and  more  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  namely,  mutual  respect  and  mutual  love 
among  the  different  parties  into  which  Christians 
are  divided.  Let  us  be  grateful  that  there  is  among 
the  different  sects  more  mutual  respect  than  there 
was  formerly.  Christians  do  not  now  despise  and 
hate  each  other,  but  there  is  much  inclination  to 
seek  and  to  see  the  good  that  each  denomination 
represents.  And  then  of  course  the  highest  unity 
of  all  is  in  mutual  Christian  love.  The  fires  of 
Bmithfleld  have  been  quenched  never  to  be  rekindled. 
Fierce  recriminations,  angry  polemics,  harsh  and  un- 
brotherly  attacks  are  more  and  more  discountenanced 
among  Christian  people.  There  is  a  growing  senti- 
ment of  mutual  love  among  the  Christian  denomina- 
tions, and  by  all  means  let  us  promote  this  kind  of 
unity;  for  as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  this  can  be  se- 
cured, greater  and  greater  approximations  may  be 
continually  made  toward  those  which  have  already 
been  sketched.  Common  interests  and  mutual  re- 
gard will  render  co-operation  less  and  less  difficult, 
and  these  two,  helping  each  other  will  tend  toward 
a  larger  and  more  correct  apprehension  of  truth, 
and  make  increasingly  possible,  if  it  should  be 
proved  to  be  desirable,  something  like  organic 
union. 

It  is  proper  that  we  should  now  give  our  atten- 
tion to  the  position  more  particularly  of  the  Bap- 
tist churches,  as  to  this  question  of  union  among 
Christians.  Baptists  are  not  less  desirous  than  any 
other  body  of  Christians  that  there  should  be  as 
complete  and  perfect  a  state  of  unity  among  all  the 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN   UNION.  243 

followers  of  our  Lord  as  it  is  possible  to  attain. 
Owing  to  their  convictions  on  matters  of  baptism 
and  the  participants  of  the  Lord's  Supper  they  seem 
to  occupy  a  somewhat  more  exclusive  and  less  tol- 
erant position  than  that  of  their  brethren  of  the 
Psedobaptist  denominations,  and  doubtless  many 
of  these  believe  that  the  Baptists  are  more  sec- 
tarian than  they  really  are.  Any  one  who  is  well 
acquainted  with  the  Baptist  denomination  ought 
to  know  that  the  things  referred  to  are  matters  of 
principle,  of  logic  and  of  consistency,  and  that  they 
do  not  indicate  any  less  strong,  sincere  or  large- 
minded  desire  for  Christian  union  than  prevails 
among  other  denominations.  It  is  perfectly  natural 
that  there  should  be  nearer  approximations  in  doc- 
trine and  in  co-operation  between  Paidobaptist  de- 
nominations than  between  these  and  the  Baptist 
churches. 

As  to  doctrinal  union,  the  only  way  that  Bap- 
tists can  act  in  accordance  with  their  principles  is 
to  assert  with  all  earnestness  and  vigor  that  the 
Scriptures  alone  are  the  rule  of  faith,  the  final  ap- 
peal in  all  doctrinal  differences.  Of  course,  there 
must  be  difference  of  view  as  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures.  Men  will  never  agree  as  to"  the 
meaning  of  certain  passages;  but  it  seems,  at  least 
to  most  Baptists,  very  doubtful  if  any  of  their  tra- 
ditional and  current  interpretations  can  be  aban- 
doned without  sacrifice  of  truth.  The  intelligent 
Baptist  who  studies  over  and  over  again  the  dis- 
tinctive beliefs  of  his  denomination  is  more  and 
more  deeply-  convinced  that  they  are  based  on  essen- 
tial  scriptural   truth ;    and   here   is   a   point   upon 


244  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

which  no  intelligent  and  conscientious  Christian 
man  can  fairly  be  asked  to  make  a  compromise.  We 
must  have  more  and  more  of  the  Bible  in  all  our 
creeds.  Show  the  Baptists  that  any  of  their  ac- 
cepted tenets  are  untrue  to  the  letter  or  spirit  of 
the  divine  revelation,  and  they  will  be  the  first  to 
yield ;  but  until  this  can  be  shown  they  cannot  be 
expected  to  surrender  any  of  their  doctrinal  opin- 
ions and  long-accepted  truths.  At  the  same  time 
Baptists  cheerfully  accord  to  other  denominations 
the  right  to  study  for  themselves  and  to  differ  from 
them.  The  freedom  of  the  Christian  mind  and  the 
liberty  of  the  individual  conscience  are  as  thor- 
oughly understood  and  applied  among  Baptists  as 
among  any  people  on  earth.  If  in  the  free  exercise 
of  mind  and  conscience  Christians  will  make  a 
closer  and  closer  adherence  to  the  clear  teachings 
of  the  word  of  God,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  as  to 
their  coming  nearer  and  nearer  together  in  their 
beliefs,  and  in  the  practices  which  grow  out  of  those 
beliefs. 

As  to  organic  union,  the  principles,  as  well  as  the 
policy,  of  the  Baptists  are  directly  opposed  to  it. 
Baptists  could  not  consistently  enter  into  any  or- 
ganic combination  with  those  who  believe  that  in- 
fants, incapable  of  exercising  repentance  and  faith, 
should  be  baptized  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
churches,  nor  could  they  enter  into  organic  church 
relation  with  those  who  disobey  the  plain  command 
of  our  Lord  to  be  immersed  on  a  profession  of  faith. 
These  are  important ;  and  unless  there  is  real  agree- 
ment of  mind  and  heart  upon  them,  any  forced  or- 
ganic union  would  be  a  sham.     Besides  that,  the 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION.  245 

evident  tendency  in  all  history  of  organic  unions 
has  been  toward  the  centralization  of  power  and 
the  control  of  local  churches  by  such  power.     The 
"baptized  churches"  of  our  Lord,  as  the  denomina- 
tional fathers  were  wont  to  call  their  organizations, 
cannot   submit  to   the   control   of  any   centralized 
power,  whether  lodged  in  one  person  or  in  a  repre- 
sentative assembly.     They  believe  it  is  contrary  to 
the  genius  and  teachings  of  Christianity;  and  they 
could  not  accept  an  organic  union  which  in  their 
opinion  inevitably  tends  toward  the  overthrow  of 
their  views  of  the  New  Testament  church  polity. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  reasonable  prospect  of  in- 
ducing the  Baptist  churches  to  enter  into  any  or- 
ganic  union   with    other    Christian    denominations 
until  they  accept  what  the  Baptists  themselves  con- 
sider to  be  fundamental  Bible  truths  on  those  im- 
portant points  in  which  differences  now  exist.     If 
any  choose  to  call  this  ''narrow  sectarianism''  they 
are  perfectly  welcome  to  entertain  that  opinion. 

Taking  up  the  matter  of  co-operative  union,  we 
come  to  easier  ground,  and  it  may  be  said  without 
reserve  that  the  Baptist  churches  and  their  indi- 
vidual members  should  not  refuse  to  co-operate  with 
their  brethren  of  other  denominations,  so  far  as  they 
can  do  so  without  prejudice  to  the  truth  of  Scrip- 
ture and  to  denominational  self-respect.  It  must 
be  admitted,  regretfully,  that  the  experience  of  the 
Baptists  has  not  generally  been  encouraging  in  re- 
gard to  co-operative  union,  in  various  enterprises 
of  common  Christian  interest,  with  their  brethren 
of  other  denominations.  Illustrations  may  easily 
be  given,  some  of  them  general  and  some  only  par- 


246  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ticular  and  local,  where  Baptists  for  the  love  of 
unity,  having  agreed  to  co-operate  with  their 
brethren,  have  been  reminded  rather  unpleasantly 
of  the  differences  which  separate  them  from  other 
Christians. 

In  the  matter  of  spiritual  union,  Baptists  find  no 
difficulty  and  no  objection  in  the  way  of  cultivating 
the  highest  and  purest  fraternal  feeling  and  union 
of  heart  and  hope  that  it  is  possible  to  reach.  Their 
sense  of  duty  to  Christ  and  to  the  world,  their 
cherished  principles  of  soul-liberty,  their  glorious 
history  as  against  persecution  for  conscience'  sake, 
all  should  put  them  in  the  forefront  in  promoting 
and  practising  the  highest  possible  degree  of  spir- 
itual union  among  all  true  children  of  God.  Bap- 
tists have  no  right  to  be  bigoted.  While  loyal  to  all 
clear  spiritual  truth,  they  must  not  be  disloyal  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Master  who  inspired  the  truth. 
Laying  aside  all  unworthy  prejudices,  seeking  for 
fuller  light,  rejoicing  in  the  widening  circle  of  re- 
ligious freedom  the  world  over,  praying  with  all 
earnestness  for  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
with  love  for  all  who  truly  love  the  Lord,  the  Bap- 
tists should  have  a  conscientious  and  constant  de- 
sire more  and  more  for  a  true  spiritual  union  of  all 
the  followers  of  Christ.  As  a  rule  Baptists  do  seek 
this  union  and  try  to  promote  it.  Of  course,  here 
and  there  may  be  found  among  them,  as  among 
other  Christians,  some  whose  spirit  is  not  in  har- 
mony with  this  divine  and  glorious  consummation, 
some  who  emphasize  differences  and  contend 
angrily  even  over  truths,  some  who  may  be  narrow- 
minded  and  prejudiced,  but  after  all,  these  ills  and 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION.  247 

frailties  are  not  the  peculiar  heritage  of  Baptists. 

I'erhaps  it  may  be  well  before  leaviug  the  subject 
to  mention  more  specifically  some  of  the  Christian 
bodies  with  which  union  is  to  be  cultivated.  These 
bodies  for  convenience  of  discussion  may  be  classed 
as  denominational  and  undenominational. 

By  the  denominational  bodies  is  meant  those 
which  are  called  churches,  such  as  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  the  like.  In  using  this  well-accepted 
term  let  it,  of  course,  be  understood  that  the  Bap- 
tists do  not  regard  these  bodies  as  being  scrip- 
turally  composed  and  organized  churches.  They 
could  not  do  that  without  denying  their  own  defi- 
nition of  what  a  scriptural  church  is.  But  the 
word  "church"  has  come  by  custom  to  be  applied 
to  the  various  ecclesiastical  bodies  of  all  denomina- 
tions, and  it  would  be  discourteous  not  to  use  the 
term,  in  the  general  way  which  habit  sanctions. 

The  two  great  principles  of  especial  importance 
here  are  those  of  charity  on  the  one  hand,  and  of 
loyalty  to  truth  on  the  other.  Baptists  must  love 
their  brethren  of  other  denominations,  but  must 
not  partake  in  their  errors.  Now,  it  is  often  an  ex- 
ceedingly delicate  thing  to  draw  the  line  in  the 
right  place  here.  Sometimes  logical  consistency 
and  sound  denominational  policy  seem  to  conflict 
with  Christian  love  and  sentiment.  In  all  such 
cases  good  sense,  tact.  Christian  courtesy,  combined 
with  firm  adherence  to  principle,  should  rule. 

Besides  the  various  churches  there  are  certain 
undenominational    organizations    with    which    co- 


248  POLITY  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

operation  and  union  of  sentiment  may  be  culti- 
vated. These  organizations  are  very  numerous  and 
varied,  and  there  is  no  need  here  to  attempt  any 
complete  mention  of  them.  Some  are  very  general 
in  their  nature  and  work,  as  the  Evangelical  Al- 
liance, which  has  local  subdivisions  and  is  founded 
upon  the  most  general  Christian  principles.  Some 
of  these  bodies  are  both  local  and  general,  as  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Associations,  the  Young 
People's  Societies  of  Christian  Endeavor,  the  va- 
rious Bible  Societies,  and  the  like.  Some  are  only 
local,  as  Ministerial  Unions  in  the  various  cities, 
or  Sunday  school  Unions.  Again,  some  of  these 
bodies  are  permanent,  as  those  which  have  been 
mentioned,  and  some  are  only  temporary,  as  various 
kinds  of  conventions,  union  meetings,  and  so  on. 
As  to  Baptist  co-operation  with  these  bodies  sev- 
eral remarks  may  be  ventured.  Since  these  org'ani- 
zations  do  not  call  themselves  churches,  we  are  re- 
lieved from  embarrassment  on  this  score.  As  they 
usually  have  only  very  broad  doctrinal  standards, 
there  is  commonly  little  or  no  difficulty  on  the  point 
of  doctrinal  union;  yet  it  is  true  that  there  is  room 
here  for  trouble  to  arise,  and  there  is  need  that 
with  denominational  loyalty  Baptists  should  be  cir- 
cumspect in  their  co-operation  with  undenomina- 
tional bodies.  Usually  whatever  union  these  may 
call  for  is  not  a  matter  either  for  local  church  ac- 
tion, or  for  the  denomination  at  large;  it  is  rather 
the  concern  of  the  individual  Christian  whether  he 
shall  take  part  in  these  undenominational  organiza- 
tions or  not.  Sometimes,  however,  in  various  ways 
the  churches  as  such  may  have  occasion  to  recog- 


AS  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION.  249 

nize  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  some  of  these  so- 
cieties. When  such  action  is  called  for,  and  does 
not  contravene  denominational  principles,  it  is  well 
that  it  should  be  taken,  in  the  spirit  of  Christian 
courtesy  and  co-operation.  As  a  rule  these  various 
organizations  have  in  view  some  definite  practical 
end,  and  so  they  call  at  the  most  only  for  co-opera- 
tion in  the  particular  purpose  for  which  they  were 
called  into  existence.  The  Young  Men's  Christian 
Association,  for  example,  does  not  celebrate  the 
Lord's  Supper  or  administer  the  rite  of  baptism. 
It  seeks  to  promote  the  spiritual  and  moral  good 
of  the  young  men  in  the  respective  communities 
where  its  branches  exist.  Some  people  object  to  co- 
operating with  this  great  institution  on  the  ground 
that  the  churches  themselves  ought  to  do  the  work 
which  the  Association  is  striving  for.  Perhaps  they 
ought,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  often 
strangely  negligent  in  making  provision  or  special 
appeal  for  the  young  men  of  our  larger  towns  and 
cities.  So,  illustrations  might  be  given  in  regard 
to  various  other  organizations.  We  can  only  say 
that  as  a  general  rule  we  must  use  judgment  and 
conscience,  not  letting  sentiment  run  away  with 
loyalty  to  truth,  nor  allowing  sectarian  bigotry  to 
poison  and  undo  the  broadest  and  sweetest  exercise 
of  Christian  charity.  In  the  most  general  terms, 
let  the  Baptists  be  true  to  Christ,  true  to  the  prin- 
ciples revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  true  to  the 
church  universal,  composed  of  all  the  sincere  be- 
lievers in  the  risen  and  ascended  Lord,  and  true  to 
their  own  dearly  bought  and  highly  prized  convic- 
tions  of  scriptural   truth,   and  they   will   have  no 


250  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

great  diflSculty  in  applying  to  any  special  cases  that 
may  arise  the  principles  which  tend  to  the  develop- 
ment and  maintenance  of  all  practicable  union 
among  the  diversified  bodies  which  profess  and  call 
themselves  Christian. 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  251 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XV. 

RELATIONS  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

I.  The  true  theory — entire  but  friendly  separation. 

1.  Negative  aspects — no  organic  union. 

(1)  State  must  not  control  in  spirituals. 

(a)  Doctrine. 

(b)  Worship. 

(c)  Polity. 

(d)  Works. 

(2)  Church  must  not  seek  to  control  state  in 

any  way. 

2.  Positive  aspects. 

(1)  State  to  church. 

(a)  Control  in  seculars. 

(b)  Protection. 

(2)  Church  to  state. 

(a)  Right  of  petition. 

(b)  Duty  of  submission  in  general. 

(c)  Duty  of  wholesome  influence. 

II.  Difficulties  in  application. 

1.  As  to  worship.    Chaplains,  etc. 

2.  As  to  taxation.    Some  reasons  for  exemption. 

3.  As  to  grants.     Direct  donations  should  not 

be  sought  nor  accepted. 

4.  As  to  education.    Parallel  institutions. 

5.  As  to  charities.    Both  must  work. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES  OF  TO-DAY. 
THEIR  RELATIONS  TO   CIVIL  GOVERNMENT. 

The  history  of  Baptists  has  been  a  continued  pro- 
test against  ecclesiastical  or  civil  tyranny  over  the 
consciences  of  men  in  religious  concerns,  and  not  a 
protest  only  but  a  brave  and  gloriously  successful 
resistance.  The  Baptist  churches  of  to-day  have, 
in  soul-liberty,  a  priceless  and  dearly  bought  her- 
itage from  their  forefathers,  and  it  should  be  theirs 
to  maintain  it  intact  both  for  themselves  and  all  the 
world.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  Baptists,  like  all 
other  human  beings,  have  been  sometimes  and  in 
some  points,  inconsistent  with  their  principles  in 
this  matter;  and  it  is  also  true  that  even  here  in 
America,  where  largely  as  the  result  of  Baptist  agi- 
tation and  endeavor  the  fullest  religious  freedom 
is  enjoyed  under  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land, 
there  are  occasional  violations,  and  tendencies  to 
violation,  of  the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  that  law. 
It  was,  for  instance,  the  custom  of  the  United  States 
Congress  to  include  in  its  Indian  Appropriation 
Bill  certain  grants  for  the  furtherance  of  education 
among  the  Indians  in  the  various  denominational 
schools,  and  Baptists  once  or  twice  accepted  these 
grants,  being  no  doubt  influenced  by  the  example 
of  others,  and  being  unwilling  to  be  discriminated 

252 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  253 

against  by  refusing  to  accept  appropriations  which 
were  made  to  almost  all  the  leading  denominations. 
But  these  departures  from  the  established  princi- 
ples of  the  Baptists  were  very  few,  and  were  speed-' 
ily  abandoned.  The  other  Protestant  denomina- 
tions soon  waked  up  to  the  inequality  and  injustice 
of  these  distributions  when  they  discovered  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was  getting  more  of 
the  public  money  than  all  the  rest  of  the  denomi- 
nations in  America  put  together.  In  1896  a  bill 
was  passed  in  the  Lower  House  refusing  aid  to  sec- 
tarian Indian  schools.  On  all  these  accounts  it  is 
well  to  define  and  afiirm  anew  the  Baptist  theory 
of  the  proper  relation  of  church  and  state,  and  to 
consider  carefully  some  difficulties  which  arise  in 
the  practical  application  of  the  principle  to  details. 
It  is  important  at  the  outset  to  explain  the  true 
theory  as  to  the  relation  between  religion  and  civil 
government,  or  as  it  is  commonly  expressed,  be- 
tween church  and  state.  A  brief  statement  of  the 
theory  would  say  that  there  should  be  in  their 
special  functions  entire,  but  friendly,  separation 
and  independence  between  church  and  state.  This, 
of  course,  does  not  mean,  and  cannot  mean,  that 
they  should  have  no  connection  whatever  with  each 
other,  but  that  in  their  special  sphere  of  action  they 
should  not  interfere  with  each  other's  working.  The 
matter  requires  fuller  statement  and  explanation. 
Religion  and  the  state  are  great  and  important  in- 
stitutions, directly  concerned  with  the  temporal  and 
■spiritual  interests  of  the  same  people.  They  must, 
therefore,  have  many  interests  in  common,  and  in 
fact   their  relations   are  very   real   and   very   inti- 


284  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

matej  hut  there  is  not  and  should  not  be  complete 
identity  of  life,  sphere  or  function;  yet  there  is  no 
call  for  hostility  between  them,  but  for  the  largest 
and  fullest  mutual  sympathy  and  help. 

We  shall  look  first  at  the  negative  aspects  of  the 
relations  between  church  and  state.  There  should 
be  no  such  organic  union  of  the  two  as  to  make  the 
church  the  state  exercising  spiritual  functions,  or 
the  state  the  church  exercising  secular  functions. 
There  must  be  no  government  of  the  church  by  the 
state  in  church  affairs,  and  no  government  of  the 
state  by  the  church  in  state  affairs.  These  two 
propositions  will  be  considered  separately. 

The  state  must  not  control  the  church  in  spiritual 
affairs.  The  civil  government  must  have  absolute 
and  impartial  respect  for  the  rights  of  conscience 
in  regard  to  religion,  as  well  as  other  matters.  The 
government  has  no  right  to  enforce  upon  its  citi- 
zens religious  doctrines,  worship,  polity  or  works. 
In  regard  to  religious  beliefs,  it  is  no  part  of  the 
duty,  or  rights  of  the  state,  to  declare  by  law,  or 
enforce  by  penalty,  what  a  man  shall  believe — what, 
religious  views  he  shall  hold.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
no  earthly  power  can  enforce  opinion  and  belief. 
The  state  can  only  take  cognizance  of  actions.  It 
cannot  presume  to  dictate  the  inner  motives  of 
outer  acts,  nor  prescribe  the  opinions  upon  which 
actions  are  based;  hence,  the  state  cannot  enforce 
doctrine.  Wherever  the  civil  government  has  as- 
sumed to  set  up  a  doctrinal  standard,  wicked  and 
bloody  persecution  has  followed. 

In  regard  to  worship,  the  right  of  the  state  to  im- 
pose forms  of  worship  is  denied.     It  must  not  pre-. 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  255 

sume  to  prescribe  to  its  citizens  where,  how  or  when 
they  shall  lift  up  their  souls  in  adoration  of  the 
Creator.  The  spiritual  worship  which  God  requires 
must  be  free,  and  the  divine  requirement  is  sover- 
eign over  human  law.  These  principles  as  to  doc- 
trine and  worship  were  well  brought  out  in  the  Vir- 
ginia Declaration  of  Rights,  which  declares  (Art. 
16)  :  ''That  religion,  or  the  duty  which  we  owe  to 
the  Creator,  and  the  manner  of  discharging  it  can 
be  directed  only  by  reason  and  conviction,  not  by 
force  or  violence."  These  words  were  quoted  in  a 
Memorial  and  Remonstrance  presented  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  Virginia  against  the  existing  es- 
tablishment of  religion  in  that  commonwealth  in 
1785.  This  instrument  was  drawn  by  James  Madi- 
son, afterward  president  of  the  United  tSates.  It 
is  an  admirable  presentation  of  the  principal  objec- 
tions to  the  union  of  church  and  state.  The  emi- 
nent author,  after  quoting  the  Declaration  of 
Rights,  goes  on  to  say :  "The  religion,  then,  of  every 
man  must  be  left  to  the  conviction  and  conscience 
of  every  man,  and  it  is  the  right  of  every  man  to 
exercise  it  as  these  may  dictate.  This  right  is  in 
its  nature  an  unalienable  right.  It  is  unalienable 
because  the  opinions  of  men,  depending  only  on  the 
evidence  contemplated  by  their  own  minds,  cannot 
follow  the  dictates  of  other  men.  It  is  unalienable 
also  because  what  is  here  a  right  toward  men  is  a 
duty  toward  the  Creator.  It  is  the  duty  of  every 
man  to  render  to  the  Creator  such  homage  and  such 
honor  as  he  believes  to  be  acceptable  to  him.  This 
duty  is  precedent  both  in  order  of  time  and  in  de- 
gree of  obligation  to  the  claims  of  civil  societv.    Be- 


256  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

fore  any  man  can  be  considered  as  a  member  of  civil 
society  he  must  be  considered  as  a  subject  of  the 

Governor  of  the  universe We  maintain, 

therefore,  that  in  matters  of  religion  no  man's  right 
is  abridged  by  the  institution  of  civil  society,  and 
that  religion  is  wholly  exempt  from  its  cognizance." 
During  the  same  memorable  time,  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Virginia  in  1785  adopted  an  act  to  estab- 
lish religious  freedom.  This  was  drawn  by  Thomas 
Jefiferson,  and  is  in  these  words:  "Be  it  enacted  by 
the  General  Assembly  that  no  man  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  frequent  or  support  any  religious  worship, 
belief  or  minister  whatsoever;  nor  shall  be  en- 
forced, restrained,  molested  or  burthened  in  his 
body  or  goods ;  nor  shall  otherwise  suffer  on  account 
of  his  religious  opinions  or  belief;  but  that  all  men 
shall  be  free  to  profess  and  by  argument  to  main- 
tain their  opinions  in  matters  of  religion,  and  that 
the  same  shall  in  nowise  diminish,  enlarge  or  affect 
their  civil  capacities."*  These  sentiments  were 
afterwards  embodied  in  the  first  amendment  to  the 
Federal  Constitution,  which  was  adopted  at  the  in- 
stance of  James  Madison  and  others  who  were  in 
fluenced  very  largely  by  the  remonstrances  of  the 
Baptists  of  Virginia.  The  article  reads :  ''The  Con- 
gress shall  make  no  law  respecting  the  establishment 
of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof." 
A  further  extension  of  the  negative  relations  of 
government  would  include  the  matter  of  church 
polity.  The  state  has  no  right  to  set  up  or  enjoin 
any  plan  of  organization  by  which  believers  and 

^Quotations    from    the    Appendix   to   Beale's  edition    of 
Semple's  History  of  the  Baptists  of  Virginia. 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  257 

worsliipers  of  God  shall  govern  themselves  in  their 
religious  concerns.  In  the  state  churches  of  Europe 
the  idea  was  that  the  church  was  really  the  state 
acting  in  religious  matters  and  for  religious  ends. 
Consequently  episcopacy  was  established  in  England 
by  act  of  I'arliament  and  at  first  and  for  many  years 
was  enforced;  but,  as  is  well  known,  the  attempt 
to  enforce  episcopacy  upon  Scotland  led  to  great 
disturbances  and  brave  resistance.  It  may  be  said 
that  the  attempt  to  enforce  episcopacy  in  Great 
Britain  has  failed.  Now,  of  course,  episcopacy  is 
established  and  dissent  is  tolerated ;  but  even  this 
is  wrong;  for  it  is  but  a  logical  and  proper  exten- 
sion of  the  correct  principle  to  deny  the  right  of  the 
state  to  compel  its  citizens  to  support  a  church  es- 
tablishment of  which  they  do  not  approve.  It  was 
never  right  that  dissenters,  who  were  conscien- 
tiously in  favor  of  their  own  forms  of  religion, 
should  have  iiad  to  su])port  these  by  voluntary  con- 
tributions, and  at  the  same  time  pay  taxes  for  the 
support  of  the  state  religion.  Little  by  little  this 
ini(iuity  has  been  removed,  until  now  the  revenues 
of  the  Church  of  England  come  chiefly,  if  not  wholly, 
from  endowments  and  voluntary  contributions;  but 
still  the  church  enjoys  many  privileges  and  advan- 
tages not  accorded  to  others.  On  the  other  hand 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  an^-  organization  pro- 
fessing to  be  religious  which  should  use  its  religious 
institutions  for  treasonable  or  criminal  purposes 
would  justly  fall  under  the  punishment  of  the  state. 
Clearly  the  civil  government  would  have  the  right 
to  forbid  or  suppress  any  institution  of  this  char- 
acter, but  this  would  not  be  an  infraction  of  re- 


258  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ligious  rights  properly  speaking — it  would  only  be 
the  state's  exercising  the  right  to  maintain  itself 
and  to  protect  its  citizens,  and  these  two  are  funda- 
mental rights  of  government. 

As  to  religious  works,  we  should  say  further  that 
the  state  has  no  right  to  compel  distinctively  re- 
ligious works;  yet  here  careful  discrimination  must 
be  made;  for  it  is  evidently  the  state's  duty  to  sup- 
press and  punish  crime  and  to  protect  its  citizens 
in  their  personal  rights.  If,  now,  these  personal 
rights  should  be  invaded,  or  crime  should  be  com- 
mitted, in  the  name  of  religion,  the  state  must  in- 
terfere to  prevent  or  punish  such  action.  But  this 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  undertaking  to  enforce 
distinctively  religious  conduct.  Sometimes  diflS- 
culty  would  arise  here,  as  in  the  matter  of  Sabbath 
observance.  While  the  state  has  no  right  to  en- 
force this,  yet  it  may  with  entire  propriety  protect 
the  people  in  their  enjoyment  of  a  religious  rest  day, 
and  it  may  forbid  acts  which  are  abhorrent  to  the 
religious  sentiments  of  a  majority  of  the  citizens. 
There  can  be  no  hard-and-fast  line  drawn  in  regard 
to  these  actions.  Sometimes  such  prohibition  of 
actions  might  approach  dangerously  near  to  an  at- 
tempt to  compel  the  people  in  matters  of  conscience. 
Ordinarily,  however,  the  leaning  is  the  other  way, 
and  the  state  may  intervene  to  accord  just  religious 
freedom  to  all  its  subjects. 

We  must  now  look  at  the  other  side  of  our  prob- 
lem, which  is  that  the  church  must  not  seek  to  con- 
trol the  state  in  things  secular.  This  is  the  just  and 
logical  converse  of  the  other  proposition.  No  church 
must  seize  the  reins  of  secular  authoritv  and  rule 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  259 

in  her  own  interests.  This  experiment  has  some- 
times been  tried,  but  has  not  met  with  long  con- 
tinued success.  Human  reason  and  the  sense  of 
liberty  revolt  afjainst  this  method  of  procedure.  In 
the  great  conflicts  l)etween  the  popes  and  the  em- 
perors, the  pope  claimed  superior  sovereignty  over 
the  civil  government.  This  contention  of  the  papacy 
has  been  ably  argued  and  constantly  practised 
whei'ever  Rome  has  had  the  power  to  carry  out  her 
theories.  The  following  argument  from  Thomas 
Aquinas  is  quoted  from  Professor  Willoughby's 
Nature  of  the  State,  p.  47:  ''The  highest  aim  of 
mankind  is  eternal  blessedness.  To  this  chief  end 
all  earthly  aims  must  be  subordinated.  This  chief 
aim  cannot  be  realized  through  human  direction 
alone,  but  must  obtain  divine  assistance,  which  is 
only  to  be  obtained  from  the  church;  therefore,  the 
state,  through  which  earthly  aims  are  attained, 
must  be  subordinated  to  the  church.''  Even  Prot- 
estants have  not  always  escaped  the  clutches  of  this 
argument.  The  theocracy  established  in  Geneva 
under  Calvin,  and  various  other  similar  institutions, 
show  how  slowly  the  true  idea  of  religious  liberty 
gained  upon  men  even  after  the  Reformation ;  and 
in  our  own  country  the  unhappy  attempts  in  the 
commonwealths  of  Massachusetts  and  Virginia  to 
make  the  church  dominant  in  the  state  illustrate 
the  same  difficulty  of  escaping  from  Romanist  views 
on  the  subject.  After  more  than  a  century  of  trial 
in  our  country  the  principle  is  firmly  fixed  in  mod- 
ern civilization.  Bismarck's  famous  declaration  in 
the  Reichstag,  ''We  go  no  more  to  Canossa,"  showed 
the  feeling  of  triumphant  Germany  after  the  French 


260  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

war  of  1870.  It  is  true  that  there  has  been  some 
reaction  in  Germany,  but  recent  events  in  England 
and  France  touching  the  control  of  public  education 
by  religious  bodies  show  unmistakably  the  trend  of 
thought  in  Europe.  It  seems  beyond  all  question 
that  in  the  progressive  civilized  nations  of  the  world 
any  attempt  to  subordinate  the  civil  government  to 
the  control  of  any  church,  sect  or  hierarchy  would 
now  be  impossible  of  accomplishment.  Certainly 
in  our  own  free  land  there  seems  to  be  no  danger 
of  such  a  catastrophe.  At  the  same  time  our  people 
should  remember  the  political  watch-word  that  "the 
price  of  liberty  is  eternal  vigilance;''  for  doubtless 
there  are  those  who  would  like  to  impose  upon  our 
own  free  institutions  the  manacles  of  ecclesiastical 
tyranny. 

Turning  now  to  the  positive  aspects  of  the  con- 
nection between  church  and  state,  we  may  observe 
that  these  two  great  institutions  must  of  necessity 
have  very  close  relations,  and  between  them  there 
must  be  mutual  benefit.  Absolute  independence  is 
of  course  impossible.  Church  and  state  occupy  the 
same  territory,  they  minister  to  the  wants  of  the 
same  body  of  citizens,  they  seek  in  different  ways 
to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  same  people.  Thus, 
they  must  have  many  and  close  connecting  bonds. 
Sometimes  difficulties  will  arise  in  the  proper  ad- 
justment of  the  respective  duties  and  rights  of  re- 
ligion and  government,  but  some  things  at  least  are 
clear  and  beyond  dispute. 

We  may  say  that  the  state  has  positive  relations 
to  the  church.  And  among  these  we  should  mention 
state  control  in  things  secular.     This  is  clearly  a 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVEUXMEXT.  261 

well-defined  principle  of  religion.  Our  Lord  taught 
that  we  must  "render  unto  Ca'sar  the  things  that 
are  Ctpsar's,"  and  I'aul  declared  that  Christian  peo- 
ple must  render  allegiance  and  oliedience  to  the 
powers  that  be;  the  apostle  Peter  likewise  enjoins 
respect  and  obedience  to  the  civil  magistrates;  so 
that  there  is  clear  Scripture  teaching  as  to  the  con- 
trol of  the  government  over  the  church  in  things 
secular.  No  church  should  be  allowed  to  act  ad- 
versely to  the  highest  interests  of  the  commonwealth. 
The  government  must  defend  the  rights  of  citizens 
against  ecclesiastical  tyranny.  This  involves  the 
right  of  government  to  interfere  in  religious  dis- 
putes where  the  peace  of  the  state  is  endangered,  to 
forbid  ecclesiastical  penalties  that  are  unjust  or 
cruel,  and  to  ])revent  i)ersecution.  It  also  involves 
the  right  to  grant  or  annul  ecclesiastical  privileges, 
according  as  these  ju-oinote  or  im])eril  the  good  of 
the  state.  The  question  of  taxation  of  church  prop- 
erty comes  u])  here,  and  so  far  as  the  state  is  con- 
cerned, there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  right  to  tax  re- 
ligious institutions,  but  there  nuiA^  be  reasons  why 
for  the  good  of  all  concerned  it  may  decline  to  ex- 
ercise this  right.  In  the  matter  of  holding  prop- 
erty and  payment  of  debts,  and  all  such  matters,  the 
state's  right  of  control  must  not  be  denied. 

Another  line  of  the  state's  relation  to  the  church 
is  that  of  prote(^tion.  One  of  the  ]>rimai'y  duties 
of  the  body  politic  is  that  of  protection  to  its  citi- 
zens in  all  their  just  rights  and  ])rivileges,  and  so 
Christians  and  other  religious  persons  have  a  right 
to  claim,  as  citizens,  jtrotection  by  the  state.  This 
right   was   exercised   in   a    notable   manner   bv   the 


262  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Apostle  Paul  himself  on  several  occasions.  Nor  is 
it  to  individuals  only  that  the  state  must  extend 
her  protecting  arm.  Societies,  corporations,  educa- 
tional and  charitable  institutions  all  have  a  right 
to  the  common  protection  of  government,  and  surely 
this  protection  could  not  be  denied  with  any  show 
of  justice  to  the  churches.  Whatever  protection, 
therefore,  the  church  needs  in  ways  not  inconsist- 
ent with  the  rights  and  privileges  of  others  the  state 
should  cheerfully  grant.  As  great  moral  and  hu- 
mane institutions  the  churches,  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  their  beneficent  purposes,  deserve  syinpathy 
and  all  reasonable  help  from  the  state.  Hence  the 
state  must  protect  the  churches  in  the  orderly  con- 
duct of  worship,  and  against  any  injury  in  persons 
or  property  from  ill-disposed  persons.  A  disturber 
of  religious  worship  is  either  willfully  or  thought- 
lessly invading  the  rights  of  the  good.  If  a  man 
can  claim  to  be  protected  in  the  peace  and  quietude 
of  his  home,  so  churches  may  claim  the  kindly  pro- 
tection of  government  in  the  peacefful  exercise  of 
their  religious  customs.  If  a  man  has  a  right  to 
hold  property  and  to  resist  with  the  help  of  the  state 
any  invasions  of  his  vested  rights,  even  so  has  a 
church  the  privilege  to  claim  the  protecting  care 
of  the  state  in  the  proper  enjoyment  of  its  acquired 
possessions.  Particular  applications  of  the  general 
principle  may  sometimes  occasion  difficulty,  but  it 
seems  hardly  necessary  to  argue  that  the  principle 
of  governmental  protection  over  the  churches  is  in 
itself  a  perfectly  sound  one. 

We  pass  on  to  notice  that  the  church  has  positive 
relations  to  the  state.     There  is,  for  example,  the 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  263 

right  of  resolution  and  petition.  Any  body  of  citi- 
zens, or  even  any  one  citizen,  has  a  right  to  present 
petitions  setting  forth  grievances  and  praying  to 
the  lawfully  constituted  authorities  for  redress.  It 
would  be  the  greatest  absurdity  to  deny  to  churches 
the  privilege  of  making  outcry  if  their  sacred  rights 
are  invaded.  The  action  of  the  Baptists  in  Virginia 
and  Massachusetts,  as  well  as  in  other  lands  and 
countries,  in  making  such  appeals  to  the  legislative 
authority  will  surely  not  be  condemned  by  those 
who  are  enjoying  the  fruits  of  their  timely  and  tem- 
perate, but  firm  and  successful,  assertion  of  the 
right  of  resolution  and  petition.  It  is  true  that 
churches  may  carry  too  far  this  sound  principle. 
They  may  vex  the  government  with  petty  grievances, 
or  they  may  act  against  their  own  interests  by  seek- 
ing state  interference  in  matters  which  should  con- 
cern themselves  alone.  As  in  the  working  of  every 
other  great  principle,  so  here  there  must  be  some 
points  of  uncertainty  in  the  application  to  details. 
It  is  better  that  sparing  use  should  be  made  of  this 
great  right,  that  churches  should  appeal  as  little  as 
possible  to  the  secular  arm  for  help  in  their  work 
and  movements. 

Corresponding  to  the  state's  right  of  control  is 
the  church's  duty  of  submission  and  obedience  in 
things  secular.  Scriptural  authority  for  this  duty 
has  already  been  noticed.  Churches  should  be  loyal 
upholders  of  law  and  order.  They  should  teach  and 
exemplify  the  soundest  principles  of  subjection  to 
rightly  constituted  civil  authority.  In  return  for 
the  exceptional  privileges  which  most  enlightened 
states  grant  to  the  churches,  they  ought  to  be  emi- 


264  POLITY  OF  THE   CHUIICHES. 

nent  defenders  of  the  state's  rights  and  hiwful 
powers. 

Another  duty  of  the  church  to  the  state  is  that 
of  exerting  a  wholesome  influence  within  the  body 
of  citizens.  By  her  prayers,  her  teaching,  her  chari- 
ties, and  by  the  active  personal  interest  and  efforts 
of  her  members,  the  church  should  be  a  purifying 
and  beneficent  power  within  the  state.  Without 
assuming  or  desiring  control,  her  influence  should 
be  as  a  blessed  leaven  within  the  bod}-  politic. 

The  mutual  rights  and  duties  of  church  and  state 
as  thus  expounded  need  not,  and  should  not,  inter- 
fere with  that  wise  and  proper  separation  between 
them  which  has  been  defended  as  a  cardinal  princi- 
ple. At  the  same  time  it  is  admitted  that  in  many 
points  of  detail  some  difficulties  in  adjusting  the 
proper  connection  between  the  government  and  re- 
ligion will  occur,  and  it  is  proper  that  we  give  our 
attention  to  these. 

In  the  matter  of  worship,  for  example,  there  some- 
times occurs  difficulty.  The  appointment  and  pay 
of  government  chaplains  is  one  of  these  knotty  ques- 
tions. In  the  army  and  navy  of  the  Ihiited  States 
and  in  Congress,  chaplains  are  appointed  and  paid 
by  the  government.  The  same  thing  holds  in  some 
of  the  state  institutions,  as  the  legislatures,  univer- 
sities, and  charitable  or  reformatory  institutions. 
Who  is  to  decide  as  to  the  religious  beliefs  of  these 
chaplains?  What  denomination  shall  they  repre- 
sent? Is  it  right  to  support  them  with  money  raised 
by  taxation  of  all  the  people?  These  questions  are 
not  very  easy  to  answer,  and  they  seem  to  be  opposed 
to  the  idea  of  entire  separation  of  church  and  state; 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT,  265 

but  on  the  other  hand  it  must  be  said,  that  while 
the  inconsistency  is  apparent,  it  is  but  slight,  and 
the  benefits  derived  are  reasonably  supposed  to  be 
greater  than  the  evils  involved;  for  how  else  is 
proper  provision  to  be  n>ade  for  a  regjular  ministry 
to  the  religious  net'ds  of  the  persons  concerned?  In 
the  case  of  such  public  institutions  as  have  been 
named,  could  these  be  safely  left  to  the  voluntary 
principle?  In  the  army,  for  example,  no  one  thinks 
of  setting  up  churches  of  the  different  sects,  and 
yet  there  is  often  need  for  the  ministries  of  religion. 
The  men  themselves,  excei)t  in  rare  cases,  would  be 
glad  to  accept  the  services  of  a  minister  not  of  their 
own  denomination,  and  any  person  who  was  fit  to 
be  appointed  an  army  or  navy  chaplain  would  surely 
not  be  a  narrow  sectarian,  but  would  endeavor, 
while  loyal  to  his  own  views  of  truth,  to  have  a  large- 
minded  charity  for  those  who  might  differ  from  him. 
Other  such  instances  might  be  mentioned  to  show 
that  in  some  small  matters  of  detail  inconsistencies 
with  the  general  theory  must  be  tolerated  for  the 
sake  of  some  special  good.  Naturally  here,  there 
would  be  difference  of  opinion  as  to  how  far  such 
inconsistencies  ought  to  be  allowed,  or  whether  they 
ought  to  be  allowed  at  all. 

Another  point  of  difficulty  in  the  adjustment  of 
the  relations  of  church  and  state  is  in  the  matter 
of  taxation.  Ought  church  property  to  be  exempt 
from  taxation?  If  it  be  granted  that  church  edifices 
and  furniture  specially  devoted  to  the  worship  of 
God  should  be  exempt,  and  if  it  be  granted  that 
charitable  institutions  which  minister  to  the  needs 
of  the  destitute  should  be  exempt,  does  it   follow 


266  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

that  educational  institutions  and  all  other  church 
property  should  be  held  exempt  from  taxation  for 
municipal,  state  or  general  governmental  purposes? 
The  broad  theor3'  of  separation  between  church  and 
state,  if  consistently  carried  out  here,  would  leave 
no  church  property  exempt  from  taxation;  for  this 
exemption,  though  indirect,  is  really  to  some  extent 
state  aid,  if  not  support,  of  the  church.  What  is 
the  difference  between  making  outright  a  grant  from 
government  funds,  and  simply  declining  to  exact 
taxes?  Is  not  the  amount  of  taxes  so  remitted  vir- 
tually a  contribution  from  the  state  to  the  institu- 
tion enjoying  the  exemption?  Upon  the  face  of  it 
this  is  true,  and  is  a  serious  objection  to  the  ex- 
emption of  church  property  of  any  kind  from  tax- 
ation. But  as  a  matter  of  fact  in  most  of  the  States 
of  our  Union  such  property  is  held  to  be  exempt, 
and  there  is  considerable  latitude  as  to  the  kinds 
of  property  which  religious  corporations  may 
hold  without  paying  taxes.  Let  us  notice  the  argu- 
ments which  may  be  urged  in  support  of  these  ex- 
emptions. The  first  is  that  the  state  gets  a  fair  re- 
turn for  this  exemption  in  the  good  which  is  done 
by  the  churches.  The  influence  of  religion,  and  the 
charitable  work  of  religion,  are  held  to  be  of  so 
great  value  that  the  commonwealth  is  simply  doing 
good  to  itself  by  releasing  these  institutions  from 
taxation.  The  argument  has  some  force,  but  there 
are  necessary  limitations  to  its  range.  The  state 
obviously  cannot  afford  to  declare  as  a  general  prin- 
ciple that  it  will  not  tax  any  institution  or  corpora- 
tion from  which  the  citizens  of  the  state  derive 
benefit.    Yet,  of  course,  the  kind  of  benefit  must  be 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  26T 

taken  into  consideration,  and  with  careful  watch- 
ing as  to  details  the  argument  may  be  admitted  to 
have  some  force. 

Another  principle  by  which  it  is  sought  to  justify 
the  exemption  of  church  property  from  taxation  is 
that  this  kind  of  property  is  not  financially  pro- 
ductive to  its  owners,  who  already  pay  taxes  on 
their  productive  property.  A  church  member  is  a 
property  holder.  He  pays  taxes  to  the  state  on  his 
individual  property  which  brings  him  income.  As 
a  member  of  the  church  he  receives  no  income.  It 
was  not  intended  to  bring  him  income,  and  all  that 
does  minister  to  his  income  has  already  been  taxed. 
In  a  sense,  therefore,  he  would  be  taxed  twice,  if  he 
had  to  pay  for  his  interest  in  the  church  property. 
Besides  that,  the  church  members  also  pay  for  the 
support  of  the  church  and  its  religious  institutions, 
which  are  not  found  self-supporting,  much  less 
profitable,  as  investments.  There  is,  therefore,  here 
a  difiference  between  churches  and  their  institutions, 
and  business  corporations.  On  the  ground  that  edu- 
cational and  charitable  institutions  may  be  held 
exempt  from  taxation,  so  also  may  churches.  An 
argument  for  exemption  may  be  also  derived  from 
the  consideration  that  the  supporters  of  the  churches 
by  voluntarily  assuming  the  burden  of  all  religious 
establishments  have  thus  relieved  the  state  of  what 
was  formerly  its  care,  and  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant elements  of  a  people's  welfare.  So  the  state 
really  profits.  Another  reason  is  found  in  practical 
trouble  in  the  way  of  ceasing  these  exemptions, 
since  they  have  so  long  existed.  This  would  be  man- 
ifest injustice  to  large  vested  interests  which  have 


268  POLITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

grown  up  under  the  principle  of  exemption.  It 
would  not  be  right  to  make  any  sudden  changes.  In 
many  cases  it  would  almost  amount  to  confiscation 
by  the  government  to  impose  taxes  upon  churches 
and  religious  institutions;  so  that  if  these  laws  are 
ever  changed  in  the  direction  of  non-exemption,  they 
ought  to  be  changed  slowly  and  with  as  little  injury 
to  existing  relations  as  possible. 

The  matter  of  grants  was  alluded  to  in  the  be- 
genning.  Here  the  donation  from  the  state  is  direct, 
and  as  no  established  property  Interests  can  suf- 
fer, such  grants  ought  to  be  declined.  Years  ago 
Carey  accepted  '^grants  in  aid"  from  the  British 
government  for  his  schools  and  missions  in  India, 
and  in  this  country  the  Indian  schools,  as  before 
remarked,  of  the  various  denominations  have  at 
times  received  government  aid.  Such  direct  grants 
are,  however,  clearly  opposed  to  the  principle  of 
separation  of  church  and  state,  and  there  is  no 
need  that  they  should  be  made. 

In  the  matter  of  education  there  are  some  very, 
delicate  and  difficult  questions  which  will  receive 
fuller  consideration  in  another  part  of  this  work. 
There  was  a  time  when  education  was  principally 
the  function  of  the  church,  but  the  state  has  more 
and  more  in  modern  times  been  encroaching,  or  as 
some  would  say,  gaining,  in  this  direction.  There 
is  no  question  that  the  denominational  schools  have 
still  a  mission  to  perform  in  this  country,  and  they 
should  be  loyally  and  earnestly  maintained  by  their 
respective  adherents.  For  the  present. at  least  there 
must  be  co-existence  of  state  and  religious  educa- 
tional institutions.     Their  rivalries,  ditferences  and 


RELATIONS  TO  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT.  2fi9 

clashes  must  be  adjusted  as  best  they  can.  Certainly 
religious  people  would  make  a  great  mistake  to 
abandon  the  tield.  l*erhaps  there  is  room  for  all 
and  patronage  enough  for  all,  without  the  necessity 
of  animosity  or  unlovely  competition.  The  church 
cannot  surrender  wholly  to  the  state  the  privilege 
and  the  duty  of  educating  the  young;  because  the 
churches  have,  and  in  the  nature  of  things  can  have, 
no  direct  control  of  the  state  colleges,  and  they  can- 
not sit  idly  by  and  run  the  risk  of  having  their 
youth  trained  in  schools  which  are  not  only  under 
the  control  of  religion,  but  may  very  conceivably  be 
even  opposed  to  religion. 

One  other  point  of  difficulty  must  be  here  con- 
sidered, and  that  is  in  regard  to  charitable  institu- 
tions. Here  again,  there  is  in  a  measure  at  least 
occupation  of  the  same  ground  by  the  church  and 
the  state,  and  there  are  consequent  difficulties. 
Charities  supported  by  taxes,  such  as  the  asylums 
for  the  insane,  alms-houses  and  the  like,  are  good 
things,  and  they  deserve  the  interest  and  sympathy 
of  Christian  jj^ople.  In  fact  they  are  the  outgrowth 
and  expression  of  the  sentiments  embodied  in  a 
Christian  civilization,  and  would  probably  never 
have  existed  but  for  the  beneficent  progress  of  the 
Christian  faith.  But  how  far  Christians  should 
turn  over  all  this  to  the  state,  how  far  they  should 
send  their  own  needy  to  these  institutions,  and  how 
far  they  should  attempt  to  maintain  similar  institu- 
tions along  with  those  which  are  supported  by  the 
government,  are  ditticult  questions.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  state  has  taken  to  itself  certain  forms 
of  charitable  and   reformatorv   work   and   left   the 


270  POLITY  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

churches  to  maintain  others.  This  has  not  been  the 
result  of  any  design  or  conference,  but  simply  the 
outgrowth  of  circumstances;  for  example,  the  state 
usually  provides  asylums  for  the  insane,  and  the 
religious  denominations  most  commonly  support  the 
orphanages.  In  fact  this  whole  question  of  the  re- 
lations of  the  church  and  state  in  matters  of  charity, 
education  and  the  like,  needs  a  careful  study  and 
adjustment.  The  existing  arrangements  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  final.  More  will  be  said  on  the  sub- 
jest  in  the  discussion  of  charities  and  reforms  as  a 
part  of  church  work. 


THE  CHItlSTIAN   ORDINANCES.  271 


PART  SECOND. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCES. 

I.  General  View  of  the  Ordinances. 

1.  Definition, 

(1)  Meaning    of    "ordinance''    and    "sacra- 

ment." 

(2)  Acts  symbolic  of  truth. 

2.  Number. 

(1)  Protestant  view — two  only. 

(2)  Romanist  view — seven. 

3.  Purpose. 

(1)  Erroneous  views. 

(2)  True  view. 

4.  Keepers. 

(1)  Christians;  not  as  individuals,  etc. 

(2)  The  churches. 

(a)  Their  duty  as  to  Baptism. 

(b)  Their  duty  as  to  the  Supper. 

II.  Controversies  over  the  Ordinances. 

1.  As  to  Baptism. 

(1)  The  Obligation. 

(2)  The  Act. 

(3)  The  Agent. 

(4)  The  Recipients. 

(5)  The  Significance. 

2.  As  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 

(1)  Meaning. 

(2)  Participants. 


PART  SECOND. 


ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


CHAPTER  I. 

thp:  christian  ordinances. 

It  is  obviously  a  matter  of  great  importance  that 
we  should  have  sound  and  scriptural  opinions  and 
clear  convictions  regarding  the  ordinances  of  our 
religion;  for  all  through  the  Christian  history, 
even  from  the  earliest  times  until  now,  these  sacred 
rites  have  been  the  occasion  of  great  and  long,  and 
often  fierce,  debates.  It  is  a  mournful  fact  that 
Christians  in  all  times,  and  even  now,  should  dis- 
agree and  contend  in  regard  to  the  most  sacred 
observances  of  their  religion.  Doubtless  this  arises 
in  part  from  the  sinful  side  of  human  nature  ex- 
pressing itself  in  mere  contentiousness.  But  the 
other  side  must  also  be  remembered.  The  very 
sacredness  of  the  things  in  dispute,  and  the  fact 
that  they  belong  to  the  Lord  and  not  to  men  have 
had  the  effect  of  making  Christians  extremely 
jealous  concerning  their  right  interpretation  and  ad- 
ministration. The  rancorous  spirit  and  the  evil 
words  and  actions  which  have  accompanied  these 
controversies    merit    only    condemnation;    but    the 

272 


THE  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCES.  273 

courage,  the  loyalty  to  truth,  the  intense  conviction 
of  duty  to  the  Lord  and  Master,  which  also  have 
been  part  and  parcel  of  these  contentions  can  only 
excite  our  admiration.  It  would  be  a  great  mistake^ 
unjust  alike  to  noble  men  now  gone  and  to  the 
character  of  many  now  living,  to  condemn  off-hand 
and  in  the  cheap  way  of  many  an  all-informed  and 
sneering  critic,  the  earnestness  and  sincerity  which 
in  large  measure  have  characterized  the  controversies 
on  the  ordinances  of  religion.  In  this  chapter  we 
first  take  a  general  view  of  the  ordinances,  and  then 
of  the  controversies  which  have  been  waged  about 
them. 

First  of  all  we  have  to  inquire,  What  are  the  ordi- 
nances?    And  at  the  outset  we  must  reckon  with 
the  terms  employed.     The  word  "ordinance"  is  de- 
rived from  the  Latin  ordo,  a  row,  or  order,  and  so 
ordinarc  meant  to  put  in  the  right  place  in  the 
row,  or  set  in  order,  and  then  consequently  to  es- 
tablish, to  command;  so  that  "ordinance"  comes  to 
mean  something  established,  commanded,  enforced 
by  proper  authority,  and  the  term  has  been  applied 
to  the  sacred  rites  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per as  institutions,  or  commandments  of  the  Lord. 
We  have,  therefore,  in  the  word  ordinance  a  glance 
at  the  authority  of  the  Master  by  whom  these  sacred 
institutions  have  been  established  and  laid  upon  the 
observance  of  his  people  in  all  time.    Sometimes  the 
word  "sacrament"  is  used  instead  of  "ordinance;" 
but  because  of  Roman  Catholic  associations  Bap- 
tists and  some  others  generally  discard  that  term. 
But  the  word  "sacrament"   in   its   origin,   and  as 
properly  understood,  presents  the  other  side  of  the 


274  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

matter,  that  is,  the  voluntary  acceptance  of  the 
authority  which  is  expressed  in  the  word  ''ordi- 
nance;" for  the  sacramentum  was  the  Roman  sol- 
dier's sacred  oath  of  allegiance  to  his  commander, 
and  so  it  came  to  denote  the  Christian's  act  of  con- 
secration to  his  Lord.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
origin  of  the  word,  and  yet,  because  of  the  principal 
element  in  the  term,  it  soon  came  to  signify  merely 
a  holy  thing,  that  is,  a  sacred  rite  or  observance 
without  reference  to  the  vow  of  the  offerer.  In  this 
sense  every  element  of  religious  life,  or  worship, 
might  be  called  a  sacrament. 

But  leaving  etymologies,  and  looking  at  present 
custom  and  association,  we  observe  that  the  word 
^'ordinance"  is  the  most  common  in  Protestant  use; 
and  it  is  well  that  it  should  be  so,  since  the  word 
itself  leads  our  thought  to  him  who  has  ordained, 
or  commanded,  these  sacred  observances  of  his  own 
origination.  Neither  "ordinance"  nor  any  other 
term  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  describe  col- 
lectively Baptism  and  the  Supper.  In  1  Cor.  11 :2, 
according  to  the  King  James  Version,  the  Apostle 
«ays :  ''Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remem- 
l)er  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances,  as  I 
delivered  them  to  you."  The  margin,  however, 
renders,  "traditions,"  which  has  been  accepted  by 
the  Revisers,  and  is  undoubtedly  the  correct  render- 
ing. The  context  shows  that  there  is  here  no  certain, 
still  less  exclusive,  reference  to  Baptism  and  the 
Supper,  but  rather  to  customs  and  proprieties  which 
the  Apostle  had  enjoined.  But  there  is  no  objection 
to  using  "ordinance"  as  a  convenient  designation. 

The  ordinances,  then,  are  certain  symbolic  acts 


THE  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCES.  275 

which  Christians  are  commanded  to  observe  as  set- 
ting forth  great  truths  of  their  religion.  The  ele- 
ments of  this  definition  are  important.  Notice  that 
these  are  acts  or  observances — things  to  do,  as  well 
as  to  keep.  They  are  not  simply  keepsakes  which 
may  fade  or  deca}',  but  actions  which  may  per- 
petually be  performed.  Again,  we  must  emphasize 
the  point  that  they  are  symbolic  acts,  done  with  a 
view  to  setting  forth  truth.  The  acts  are  of  no 
consequence  in  themselves.  Their  whole  force  lies 
in  their  symbolism.  Looked  at  simply  as  actions, 
both  ordinances  are  not  only  useless  but  somewhat 
inconvenient.  It  is  a  very  notable  thing,  that 
actions  so  simple  should  be  made  the  N'lehicles  of 
such  supreme  and  far-reaching  truths.  Moreover, 
they  are  commanded  acts,  positive  divine  institu- 
tions. In  these  days  of  overmuch  ''evolution"  it  is 
well  to  remember  that  some  of  the  best  things  in 
life  are  not  the  chance  developments  of  untrust- 
worthy human  nature,  but  are  distinctly  and 
mightily  enjoined  by  the  Power  above  all  nature, 
and  enshrined  in  a  love  and  devotion  to  which  the 
human  heart  untouched  by  the  divine  Spirit  is  a 
stranger.  Distinctly  then,  do  these  institutions 
recognize  the  authority  and  lordship  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  they  are  performed  in  simple  and  loving 
obedience  to  his  will. 

Among  the  Protestants  generally  and  the  Bap- 
tists, the  terms  "ordinances"  and  "sacraments"  are 
applied  only  to  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  Tunkers  ("Dunkards")  and  a  few  others  hold 
that  John  13:1-17  enjoins  the  practice  of  feet-wash- 
ing   as    a    perpetual    ordinance;    but    most    inter- 


276  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

prefers  regard  the  passage  as  giving  only  a  noble  ob- 
ject-lesson in  bnmility. 

Passing  now  to  the  purpose  of  the  ordinances,  we 
first  notice  some  errors.  The  Romanist  view  that  in 
some  way  the  mere  performance  of  these  acts  itself 
brings  a  blessing,  or  confers  spiritual  grace,  is  a 
grave  error.  We  hold  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
acts  themselves  to  bring  grace,  nothing  mysterious, 
nothing  miraculous,  but  that  God  blesses  the  per- 
formance of  these  acts  as  he  blesses  obedience  and 
worship  in  other  things.  Another  error  is  the 
notion  that  somehow  these  rites  were  an  intended 
means  of  impressing  the  world.  This  possibly  grew 
out  of  the  saying  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  11 :26,  "As  oft  as 
yet  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  ye  do  proclaim 
the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  But  the  "proclaim- 
ing" here  need  not  be  to  the  outside  world,  but 
rather  means  the  exhibition,  to  those  who  are  taking 
part  in  the  ordinance,  of  the  perennial  grace  and 
love  of  Christ  in  salvation.  It  is  true  that  the 
suitable  performance  of  the  ordinances  may,  and 
often  does,  have  a  happy  spiritual  effect  upon  those 
who  look  upon  it,  but  this  effect  is  incidental  to 
the  true  design  of  the  ordinances.  Another  serious 
error  is  of  course  not  held  as  a  theory — the  merely 
formal  or  ritualistic  use  of  the  ordinances,  observing 
them  as  a  custom,  or  churchly  performance,  with- 
out any  true  conception  or  hearty  realization  of  their 
intent  or  force. 

The  true  view  or  the  ordinances  may  be  set  forth 
in  three  parts,  all  of  which  are  essential  to  a  com- 
plete statement:  (1)  They  symbolize  by  vivid  ac- 
tion essential  Christian  truth,  expressing  in  an  out- 


THE   CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCES.  277 

wardly  observed  rite,  inwardly  accepted  and  funda- 
mental Christian  doctrine;  (2)  Tliey  are  to  be  kept 
as  observances  for  the  sake  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  in 
simple  obedience  to  his  positive  commands,  and  in 
grateful  recognition  of  his  claims  to  our  love  and 
duty;  (3)  They  are,  therefore,  distinctively  Chris- 
tian ceremonies,  marking  those  who  rightly  observe 
them  as  the  true  followers  of  Jesus  Christ. 

We  pass  on  to  consider  the  keepers  of  the  ordi- 
nances. Upon  whom  lies  the  obligation  to  keep  and 
administer  these  commanded  observances  of  the 
Christian  religion?  We  may  somewhat  clear  the 
ground  by  exclusion,  by  considering  upon  whom  it 
does  not  lie  to  keep  these  sacred  and  distinctive 
Christian  rites;  for  certainly  it  is  not  the  duty  of 
any  and  everybody  promiscuously  to  observe  Bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  command  to  re- 
pent and  believe  applies  to  everybody,  but  not  the 
command  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  the  command 
to  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  remembrance  of 
the  self-sacrificing  love  of  the  Saviour.  It  would  be 
monstrous  irreverence  and  impropriety  for  persons 
not  owning  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour  to  take  upon 
themselves  the  observance  of  these  holy  things.  But 
further,  we  may  say  that  not  even  the  people  of 
Christ,  indiscriminately  and  generally,  are  to  ob- 
serve the  ordinances.  It  is  true  that  every  believer 
should  be  baptized  and  should  then  observe  the 
Supper  with  his  brethren,  but  not  any  and  every  be- 
liever by  himself,  or  even  in  company  with  others, 
is  to  observe  or  administer  either  one  of  the  ordi- 
nances.   There  obviously  should  be  some  restrictions 


278  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

and  safeguards  about  the  celebration  of  these  holy 
rites.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  chance 
meetings,  or  mere  social  assemblies,  it  was  intended 
for  Christians  to  observe  the  ordinances.  Again, 
we  should  notice  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  any  in- 
dividual Christian  to  go  about  on  his  own  responsi- 
bility baptizing  people,  or  presuming  to  administer 
the  Lord's  Supper  to  whomsoever  he  might  meet. 
Nor,  finally,  is  it  to  be  regarded  as  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  ministry  or  priesthood.  This  is  de- 
batable and  debated  ground,  and  it  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  there  arises  here  some  difficulty.  It  was 
probably  true  that  in  many  cases  the  Apostles  and 
the  evangelists  of  the  New  Testament  times  ad- 
ministered these  rites  in  their  discretion;  and  so 
those  who  believe  in  apostolic  succession  in  bishops 
consider  that  the  authority  to  administer  the  ordi- 
nances was  thus  handed  down.  Baptists,  however, 
do  not  believe  that  the  Apostles  transmitted  this 
authority  through  individuals,  or  constituted  any 
order  of  men  their  successors,  either  in  name  or 
function.  They  also  deny  that  any  present  day  in- 
dividual can  show  his  apostolic  succession  and  vindi- 
cate his  credentials  to  perform  the  sacred  mysteries. 
Where,  then,  lie  the  duty  and  the  authority  in  re- 
gard to  the  observance  of  the  ordinances? 

Our  answer  is  ready.  It  is  the  duty  and  privi- 
lege of  the  organized  churches  of  Christ.  And  inas- 
much as  these  are  separate  local  bodies  of  believers, 
and  no  grand  aggregated  organization,  the  duty  of 
observance  lies  upon  each  local  church  in  particular. 
If  question  should  be  raised  as  to  the  scriptural 
authority  for  holding  that  the  local  churches  are  the 


THE  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCES.  279 

proper  depositaries  and  keepers  of  tlie  ordinances, 
we  reply  that  this  is  a  fair  inference  from  :  (1)  The 
fact  of  the  establishment  of  churches,  as  the  custo- 
dians of  Christian  truth  and  customs;  (2)  From 
the  absence  of  continuous  apostolic  authority  in  the 
churches;  and  (3)  From  the  principle  that  definite 
observances  are  more  properly  performed  by  reg- 
ularl}'  organized  and  accredited  bodies  than  by  un- 
organized and  unaccredited  individuals.  We  can- 
not say  that  there  is  any  definite  command  which 
lays  the  performance  of  these  two  ordinances  upon 
the  churches,  yet  it  appears  to  be  the  natural,  if 
not  necessary,  deduction  from  the  whole  trend  and 
tenor  of  the  New  Testament  teaching.  We  must 
take  one  of  three  positions  in  regard  to  the  matter, 
namely,  that  of  apostolic  succession  in  bishops,  or 
that  of  general  and  ill-defined  performance,  or  that 
of  church  observance.  Only  a  few  choose  the  middle 
one  of  these,  and  the  question  practically  narrows 
itself  to  a  choice  between  apostolic  succession  in 
bishops  and  the  responsible  action  of  the  local 
churches.  To  Baptists  the  latter  seems  to  be  clearly 
in  accord  with  New  Testament  principles  and 
practice. 

We  notice  now  the  duty  of  the  churches  as  keep- 
ers of  the  ordinances.  In  regard  to  Baptism,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  church  in  all  cases  to  satisfy  itself 
that  a  real  Christian  baptism  has  been  received  be- 
fore admitting  any  applicant  to  its  membership. 
There  is  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  constitutes, 
a  real  Christian  baptism  in  some  cases,  and  there- 
might  also  arise  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what 
evidence  would  satisfy  the  church  in  cases  of  doubt;. 


280  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

but  leaving  these  matters  aside,  the  principle  as  an- 
nounced is  generally  recognized  as  sound.  There 
are  some  exceptions,  of  course.  Some  sectaries  and 
others  have  not  considered  baptism  a  prerequisite  to 
church  membership,  but  a  great  majority  of  Chris- 
tian people  in  all  times  have  had  no  question  as  to 
this  point.  Baptism,  while  it  is  not  the  "door  of 
the  church"  in  any  proper  sense,  is  a  necessary  pre- 
requisite to  admission  through  the  door,  which  is 
the  vote  of  the  church  itself.  It  is  also  the  duty 
of  the  church  to  provide  for  the  observance  of  Bap- 
tism, both  by  having  a  proper  administrator  and 
suitable  appliances. 

As  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  duty  of  the  church  is 
to  keep  it  as  a  church  action,  and  with  due  solemnity 
and  decorum.  It  is  an  action  solely  for  church 
members,  presumably  ''in  good  standing  and  full 
fellowship,"  as  the  current  phrase  has  it.  It  is  an 
action  to  be  performed  in  regular  and  orderly  as- 
semblies of  the  church  held  for  that  purpose ;  though 
it  may  be  done  in  different  places  and  at  different 
seasons  as  the  church  may  by  vote  direct.  It  is  the 
privilege  of  the  church  to  appoint  any  of  its  mem- 
bers to  preside  and  direct  the  observance  of  the 
Supper.  It  does  not  require  the  presence  and  action 
of  an  ordained  minister,  though  for  the  sake  of 
regularity  and  propriety  this  is  customary  and  de- 
sirable. 

Controversies  over  the  ordinances  have  marked 
the  entire  course  of  Christian  history,  and  they 
have  not  ceased.  In  the  following  chapters  parti- 
cular attention  will  be  paid  to  these,  and  earnest 
effort  be  made  to  see  and  state  the  truth  according 


THE  CHRISTIAN  ORDINANCES.  281 

to  the  Scriptures;  but  to  prepare  the  way  for  fuller 
treatment  and  clearer  understanding,  it  is  de- 
sirable to  give  here  a  brief  and  comprehensi\'e  state- 
ment and  explanation  of  the  principal  points  of  con- 
troversy in  regard  to  each  ordinance.  As  to  Bap- 
tism there  are  five:  (1)  The  Obligation;  (2)  The 
Act;  (3)  The  Agent;  (4)  The  Kecipients;  (5)  The 
Significance.  As  to  the  Lord's  Supper  there  are 
three:  (1)  The  Meaning;  (2)  The  Participants; 
(3)  The  Observance. 

In  regard  to  Baptism  a  few  parties  and  indivi- 
duals here  and  there  have  for  one  reason  or  another 
been  led  to  deny  that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  per- 
petual institution,  or  that  it  is  in  every  case  neces- 
sary to  membership  in  a  Christian  church;  but  the 
consensus  of  opinion  among  the  vast  body  of  Chris- 
tian professors  in  all  ages  is  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  individual  believer  to  receive  and  of  the  churches 
to  require  baptism  as  obedience  to  the  command  of 
Christ,  and  as  the  indispensable  token  of  a  Chris- 
tian profession.  Greater  diff"erence  of  opinion  has 
prevailed  as  to  the  act  of  Baptism — whether  it  is 
the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water,  or  the  applica- 
tion of  water  to  the  person  by  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
and  whether  the  act  is  to  be  performed  once  only  or 
three  times  successively.  The  more  common  but  less 
accurate  phraseology  describes  this  discussion  as 
regarding  the  "mode"  of  baptism,  but  "act"  is  the 
better  word  and  will  be  used  throughout  this 
treatise.  The  next  topic  of  debate  is  that  regard- 
ing the  agent,  or  "administrator,"  of  baptism,  i.  e., 
who  is  properly  authorized  to  perform  the  act?  and 
is  the  baptism  invalid  if  performed  by  an  unsuit- 


282  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

able  agent?  Next  we  have  the  great  debate  as  to 
the  recipients,  or  ''subjects,"  of  baptism :  whether 
it  should  be  performed  on  believers  only  or  also  on 
infants  with  a  view  to  their  future  profession  of 
faith.  Lastly,  discussion  has  been  very  sharp  as  to 
the  significance  or  ''design"  of  baptism :  whether  it 
is  only  a  symbolic  and  declarative  act,  or  has  also 
spiritual  efficacy,  either  as  removing  the  taint  of 
natural  sin,  or  as  being  the  condition  of  the  divine 
remission  of  sin. 

In  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  the  various  dis- 
putes may  be  summed  up  under  the  three  points 
previously  mentioned,  meaning,  participants,  obser- 
vance: What  was  our  Lord's  purpose  in  instituting 
the  rite?  and  what  did  he  mean  by  saying,  "This  is 
my  body"?  Is  there  a  "real  presence"  of  Christ  in 
some  miraculous  way  in  the  elements,  or  is  the  rite 
one  of  solemn  and  worshipful  memorial  only?  An- 
other question  is  in  regard  to  the  proper  partici- 
pants in  the  celebration.  Are  baptism  and  regular 
church  membership  necessary  to  such  participation  ? 
or  may  any  one  at  his  option  take  part  when  the 
ordinance  is  observed?  And  lastly,  various  ques- 
tions of  detail  arise  as  to  the  observance  of  the 
Supper,  as  ,Who  should  administer  the  rite?  How 
often  it  should  be  observed?  and  under  what  con- 
ditions, methods,  etc.?  All  these  matters  will  be 
fully  considered  in  their  proper  place. 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM.  283 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  II. 

THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM. 

I.  Ground  of  the  ObligatioD. 

1.  The  will  of  Christ. 

(1)  His  example. 

(2)  His  practice. 

(3)  His  command. 

2.  The  authority  of  the  Apostles. 

(1)  Their  practice. 

(2)  Their  teaching. 

3.  The  consensus  of  Christendom. 

II.  Historical  View  of  the  Obligation. 

1.  The  patristic  era. 

2.  The  Middle  Ages. 

3.  The  Reformation  period. 

(1)  The  Catholic  Church. 

(2)  The  Reformers. 

(3)  The  Anabaptists. 

4.  Modern  times. 

(1)  Rejected  by  Quakers. 

(2)  Denied  by  some  others. 

III.  Recognition  of  the  Obligation. 

1.  As  a  Doctrine.    Defence. 

(1)  Against  denial. 

(2)  Against  neglect. 

2.  As  a  Practice.    Parties  to  it. 

(1)  The  church. 

(2)  The  agent. 

(3)  The  recipient. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM. 

Taking  up  in  the  order  announced  in  the  last 
chapter,  the  controversies  on  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism, we  begin  with  that  upon  the  obligation  of  the 
practice.  Did  Christ  intend  that  Baptism,  as  an 
outward  and  ceremonial  act,  should  be  perpetuated 
in  the  practice  of  his  people  through  time?  And 
consequently  is  it  the  duty  of  his  people  so  to  ob- 
serve and  practise  it?  While  the  great  majority  of 
Christians  in  all  times  have  so  understood  the  mind 
of  the  Master  and  have  endeavored  to  carry  out 
his  will,  there  have  been  some  here  and  there  in  the 
course  of  Christian  history  who  have  failed  either 
through  misunderstanding  or  neglect  to  recognize 
the  obligation;  and  accordingly  it  is  well  to  devote 
at  least  a  short  chapter  to  the  consideration  of  this 
fundamental  matter. 

We  first  consider  the  ground  of  the  obligation 
resting  upon  Christians  to  practise  Baptism  as  a 
religious  rite.  The  primary  reason  and  all-sufficient 
cause  is  that  it  is  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ.  How 
may  we  be  sure  of  this?  In  the  first  place  there  is 
his  own  example.  In  Matt.  3:13-15  we  have  the 
familiar  record :  "Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Gali- 
lee to  the  Jordan  unto  John  to  be  baptized  of  him. 
But  John  would  have  hindered  him,  saying,  I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to 

2S4 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM.  285 

me?  But  Jesus  answering  said  unto  him,  Suffer  it 
now ;  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness. Then  he  suffereth  him."  Now  our  Lord  ac- 
cepted the  baptism  of  John  as  a  divinely  authorized 
institution  (Matt.  21:23-27),  and  the  reason  he  as- 
signs for  receiving  it  in  face  of  the  remonstrance  of 
John — "thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness"— shows  the  high  importance  he  attached  to 
the  act,  though  in  his  case  it  did  not  signify  "re- 
pentance for  the  remisison  of  sins."  What  was  it 
then  for  Christ  but  the  definite  and  public  and 
solemn  entrance  upon  his  ministry?  It  was  in  his 
case,  as  nearly  as  the  circumstances  admitted,  the 
equivalent  of  the  believer's  entrance  upon  the  Chris- 
tian life  and  service.  Upon  this  act  of  consecration 
and  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  Son  the  Father 
then  and  there  spoke  his  approval.  As  far,  then,  as 
the  parallel  extends  the  example  of  Christ  teaches 
that  baptism,  as  the  initial  act  of  outward  Christian 
profession,  is  an  act  fulfilling  righteousness  and  as 
such  acceptable  to  God.  But  John's  baptism  was 
introductory  to  that  of  Christ  himself.  For  our 
Lord  also  employed  that  ceremony  in  making  dis- 
ciples to  himself  (John  4:1,2).  While  he  did  not 
personally  perform  the  act  he  had  his  disciples  to 
do  so.  Thus  his  practice  followed  his  own  example 
and  established  baptism  as  the  initiatory  rite  for 
those  who  would  profess  themselves  his  followers 
and  enter  the  service  of  his  kingdom.  That  nothing 
may  be  wanting  to  the  completeness  of  the  argument 
we  have,  finally,  the  explicit  command  of  Jesus  in 
the  Great  Commission  (Matt.  28:19):  "Go  ye 
therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  bap- 


286  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Here  as  the  cere- 
monial part  in  the  making  of  disciples  baptism  is 
placed  between  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  and 
instruction  in  its  duties.  Surely  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  a  more  explicit  and  emphatic  ex- 
pression of  the  Lord's  will  than  these  facts  present. 
That  the  Apostles  and  their  co-laborers  under- 
stood and  carried  out  the  Lord's  will  in  regard  to 
the  requirement  of  baptism  is  clear  both  from  their 
practice  and  their  teachings.  The  facts  in  regard  to 
the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  at  Pentecost  (Acts 
2:41),  of  the  Samaritan  converts  and  the  Ethiopian 
treasurer  (8:12,36,38),  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  (9:18),  of 
Cornelius  (10:46,48),  of  Lydia  and  the  Philippian 
jailor  (16:15,33),  of  the  twelve  imperfectly  taught 
men  (19:1-5),  are  surely  sufficient  evidence  as  to  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  early  Christians.  The 
aposolic  teaching  is  to  the  same  effect.  Paul  (Rom. 
6:1-4;  Col.  2:12)  assumes  the  fact  and  urges  the 
symbolism  of  baptism  in  a  way  to  indicate  its  im- 
portance as  the  initiatory  Christian  rite.  His  re- 
marks in  1  Cor.  1 :13-17  so  far  from  showing  a  slight 
regard  for  baptism  really  indicate  how  highly  it 
was  esteemed.  The  Corinthians  in  their  party  zeal 
were  making  a  wrong  use  of  the  names  of  Paul, 
Apollos  and  Cephas  as  leaders  to  whom  they  were 
attaching  themselves,  and  Paul  is  led  to  congratu- 
late himself  that  he  had  baptized  only  a  few  of  them 
since  this  would  have  intensified  the  feeling,  show- 
ing that  the  performance  of  baptism  was  so  highly 
regarded  as  to  constitute  a  claim  of  affection  or 
loyalty  for  the  agent  from  the  recipient.    Again  the 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM.  287 

obscure  passage  in  1  Cor.  15 :29  about  being  bap- 
tized for  the  dead  shows  the  high,  even  superstitious, 
regard  in  which  the  ordinance  was  already  held  by 
some.  Discouraging  these  misuses  Paul  shows  by 
his  very  mention  of  them  how  highly  baptism  was 
held  in  the  minds  of  the  first  Christians,  and  this 
esteem — though  of  course  not  the  perversions — was 
the  effect  of  apostolic  practice  and  teaching.  This 
teaching  is  further  illustrated  in  the  diflScult 
passage  in  1  Peter  3:21,  where  baptism  is  called 
*'the  interrogation  (or  demand,  or  appeal)  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God."  Whatever  difficulty  must 
be  felt  as  to  the  exact  meaning  of  the  term  variously 
translated  ''answer,"  "requirement,"  ^'interrogation," 
etc.,  it  evidently  describes  baptism  as  an  act  in 
which  the  conscience  deals  with  a  duty  toward  God. 
Thus  in  various  ways  the  practice  and  teaching  of 
the  Apostles  accept  and  enforce  the  will  of  Christ  in 
regard  to  baptism  as  the  ceremonial  initial  act  of 
allegiance  and  profession  on  the  part  of  a  Christian 
believer. 

It  only  remains  to  say  that  the  overwhelming 
consensus  of  opinion  and  practice  in  the  Christian 
world  during  all  the  ages  to  this  day  accepts  this 
view  of  the  matter.  There  has  been  much  dispute 
over  the  form,  administration  and  recipients  of  the 
rite,  but  very  little  as  to  whether  the  act  of  baptism 
should  be  required  as  a  condition  of  membership 
in  a  professedly  Christian  body.  The  few  excep- 
tions only  emphasize  the  parctical  unanimity  of 
Christians  on  the  point  in  question;  and  to  these 
exceptions  it  is  well  to  give  some  attention,  in  the 
way  of  a  slight  historical  sketch  of  the  subject. 


288  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

As  early  as  the  patristic  age  (during  the  first  six 
centuries)  there  appear  to  have  been  some  who  de- 
nied the  necessity  of  baptism.  Bingham  (Anti- 
quities, Book  II.,  chap.  2,  sec.  1)  says:  "Though 
the  church  always  maintained  an  honorable  opinion 
of  baptism  as  a  divine  and  heavenly  institution,  yet 
there  wanted  not  sects  and  heresies  who  in  the 
earliest  ages  spoke  very  diminutively  and  con- 
demnatively  of  it;  and  either  in  whole  or  in  part 
upon  various  reasons  rejected  or  corrupted  it."  He 
goes  on  to  give  an  account  of  some  of  these  sects  and 
their  reasons  for  rejecting  baptism.  Some  were  a 
sort  of  Gnostic  rationalists  who  said  that  religion 
was  a  matter  of  the  intellect,  and  that  baptism,  be- 
ing a  mere  external  performance,  was  of  no  service. 
Others  maintained  that  Christian  baptism  was  no 
water  baptism  at  all — that  was  John's  baptism; 
for  John  himself  said  he  baptized  with  water,  but 
Christ  would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire. 
These  evidently  anticipated  the  modern  Quakers 
and  others.  Still  others  held  that  as  baptism  was 
not  essential  to  salvation  the  performance  of  it 
was  a  matter  of  indifference. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  there  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  much  discussion  as  to  the  obligation  of  bap- 
tism. Certainly  in  the  Roman  Church  the  necessity 
of  it  was  fully  accepted,  and  if  it  was  rejected  at 
all  it  must  have  been  among  some  obscure  sects 
whose  tenets  are  not  well  known. 

During  the  period  of  the  Reformation  (1517-1648), 
along  with  every  other  element  of  Christian  faith 
and  practice,  baptism  came  up  for  a  full  share  of 
discussion.     The  parties  to  it  were  chiefly  three: 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM.  289 

the  Catholics,  the  Reformers  and  the  Anabaptists. 
But  all  these  accepted  the  obligation.  The  Council 
of  Trent  by  putting  its  approval  on  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  salvation,  and  authorizing  baptisms  by 
heretics,  emphasized  in  the  strongest  manner  the 
Church's  insistence  on  the  practice.  Likewise  the 
teachings  of  the  leading  Reformers,  the  catechisms 
and  confessions  of  faith,  show  that  these  also  con- 
sidered baptism  as  necessary  to  church  membership 
and  the  outward  profession  of  Christianity.  Of  the 
Anabaptists  it  must  be  remarked  that  their  in- 
sistence upon  believers'  baptism  as  opposed  to  that 
of  infants  clearly  shows  their  acceptance  of  the 
importance  of  baptism  as  the  initiatory  rite  of 
Christian  profession.  So  here  again,  as  in  case  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  we  have  to  say  that  if  there  were 
any  to  reject  the  obligation  of  baptism  it  must  have 
been  among  obscure  individuals  or  sects  who  are 
not  of  any  historic  importance. 

In  modern  times  (1648  till  now)  the  only  con- 
siderable sect  to  deny  the  obligation  of  baptism 
have  been  the  Quakers,  or  Friends,  who  took  their 
rise  in  England  about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  spread  both  there  and  in  America,  not- 
withstanding the  inexcusable  persecutions  to  which 
they  were  subjected.  Their  view  was  that  the  ordi- 
nances did  not  need  to  be  perpetually  repeated ;  that 
they  were  merely  spiritual  and  symbolical  rites ;  and 
that  only  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  was  of  per- 
petual force,  and  that  was  to  be  sought  and  found 
by  prayer  and  communion  with  God. 

In  England  some  Baptists  have  been  led  by  their 
views  in  favor  of  unrestricted  communion  to  adopt 


290  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHUROHES. 

also  the  view  that  baptism  is  not  required  for 
church  membership.  Once  in  awhile  in  this  coun- 
try also  some  mav  be  found  to  advocate  such 
opinions.  But  this  is  a  virtual  denial  of  the  need  of 
baptism  at  all,  and  is  the  outcome  of  loose  views 
either  of  church  polity  or  of  the  authority  of  our 
Lord  in  general. 

We  come  now  to  the  recognition  of  the  obligation 
of  baptism,  both  as  doctrine  and  duty.  As  a  clearly 
taught  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  to  be 
maintained  against  those  who  on  principle  deny  it, 
as  the  Quakers.  This  is  to  be  done,  as  in  the  case 
of  all  doctrines,  by  careful  study  and  unfolding  of 
the  doctrine  and  by  enforcing  upon  the  attention  of 
opponents  the  Scripture  proofs.  Against  those  who 
slight  the  ordinance  as  unimportant  urgent  enforce- 
ment of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Lord  himself 
is  necessary.  But  alas,  there  be  many  nowadays  to 
whom  even  this  appeal  has  little  force.  All  who 
truly  believe  in  Jesus  as  Lord  should  need  no  urging 
to  carry  out  his  commands  in  detail,  and  therefore 
to  obey  him  in  this  solemn  rite  which  he  has  him- 
self sanctioned  and  ejnoined. 

In  maintaining  baptism  as  a  practice  it  is  proper 
to  consider  the  parties  to  the  act.  Here  first  we 
place  the  church.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to 
see  that  the  commands  of  her  great  Head  and  Lord 
are  scrupulously  carried  out.  And  so  it  is  evident 
from  the  Scriptures  before  noticed  that  the  church 
must  always  require  baptism  as  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  membership.  Difficulties  in  regard  to 
what  constitutes  a  valid  baptism  in  some  cases  will 
arise.     These  are  to  be  treated  later  when  we  take 


THE  OBLIGATION  OF  BAPTISM.  291 

Up  the  subject  of  the  agent  or  administrator  of  bap- 
tism. Suffice  it  here  to  say  that  in  no  case  should  a 
church  receive  as  a  member  a  person  who  has  not 
a  defensible  claim  to  a  valid  baptism.  But  besides 
requiring  baptism  as  a  condition  of  membership,  the 
church  should  regulate  the  performance  of  the  act. 
It  should  provide  for  the  orderly  and  regular  ad- 
ministration of  the  ordinance  at  the  hands  of 
authorized  officers,  for  the  decent  conduct  of  the 
rite  with  due  solemnity  and  decorum,  and  gen- 
erally for  the  management  of  all  such  details  as 
are  necessarily  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  people  of 
God. 

The  other  parties  to  the  act  of  baptism  are  the 
performer  and  receiver  of  the  action.  The  agent 
certainly  should  have  a  clear  conviction  of  his 
authority  both  directly  from  the  Lord  and  indi- 
rectly through  his  church,  and  should  clearly  under- 
stand just  what  baptism  means  in  order  that  he 
may  intelligently  do  his  Lord's  will.  It  should  not 
be  necessary  to  say  that  he  should  perform  the  act 
solemnly,  skilfully,  both  to  the  edification  of  the 
witnesses  and  of  the  recipient.  He  who  follows  his 
Lord  in  baptism  also  owes  it  to  the  Master,  his 
brethren  and  himself  to  have  a  correct  conception 
of  what  he  is  doing  and  a  reverent  spirit  in  the  per- 
formance itself.  There  is  no  call  for  misconceptions 
of  the  merit  of  the  mere  act  of  baptism,  but  there  i? 
imperative  need  for  a  reverent  and  intelligent  per- 
formance and  acceptance  of  the  act  on  the  part  of 
those  chiefly  concerned  in  its  administration. 


292       '  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  III. 

ACT  OF  BAPTISM — MEANING  OF  THE  WORD. 

I.  Definitions  in  dictionaries. 

1.  The  three  best  are  enough. 

(1)  Liddell  &  Scott  for  classical  Greek. 

(2)  Thayer  for  New  Testament. 

(3)  Cremer  for  theological  terms. 

2.  Value  of  this  argument. 

(1)  Convenient  and  etfective. 

(2)  Definitions  in  spite  of  controversy. 

(3)  Definers  not  Baptists. 

(4)  Inductions  of  many  scholars. 

II.  Literary  Usage  of  the  Greek  Language. 

1.  Outline  of  Conant's  argument. 

(1)  Literal  use — 86  examples. 

(a)  Element  implied. 

(b)  Element  expressed  and  construed  with 

or  without  preposition. 

(2)  Figurative  use — 65  examples. 

(3)  In  compound  with  a  preposition — 17  ex- 

amples.   In  all  168. 

2.  Strength  of  the  argument. 

(1)  Breadth  of  the  induction. 

(2)  Completeness  of  the  reasoning. 

III.  Religious  Usage. 

1.  The  New  Testament. 

(1)  No  reason  for  changing  usual  meaning. 

(2)  Circumstances  require  immersion. 

(3)  Figurative  uses  correspond. 

(4)  Apparent  difficulties  explained. 

2.  The  Fathers. 

3.  Modern  Greek. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  ACT  OP  BAPTISM. 
THE  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD. 

What  is  the  act  of  baptism?  Sprinkling,  pouring, 
immersion,  or  all  three?  In  the  light  of  the  teach- 
ings of  Scripture,  the  truth  of  history  and  the  pres- 
ent duty  of  the  people  of  Christ  it  is  important  to 
settle  this  question.  The  means  of  deciding  it  are 
at  hand.  When  a  word  in  another  language  de- 
scribes an  act  and  we  want  to  know  what  the  cor- 
responding word  describing  the  same  act  is  in  our 
own  language  we  must  consult  the  best  available 
sources  of  information.  There  are  two  places  of 
appeal  in  this  matter,  though  in  reality  they  are 
but  one.  These  are  the  dictionaries  which  have 
been  made  by  competent  scholars,  and  the  usages 
of  the  language  which  lie  behind  the  dictionaries. 
This  latter  really  is  the  final  court  of  appeal,  be- 
cause it  is  clear  that  the  dictionaries  themselves 
have  "been  made  by  induction  from  the  usage  of  the 
language. 

Our  first  appeal  is  to  the  dictionaries.  Citations 
from  a  multitude  of  inferior  authorities  would  be 
little  to  the  purpose;  a  few  of  the  best  can  settle 
the  question  as  well  as  all  of  them.  Definitions  are 
here  given  from  three  great  lexicons:  one  for  the 
classical  Greek,  one  for  the  New  Testament  Greek, 

293 


294  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

and  one  for  theological  terms  in  the  New  Testament. 

For  classical  Greek  the  authority  universally 
recognized  among  English  speaking  scholars  is  the 
great  lexicon  of  Liddell  &  Scott.  The  seventh  edi- 
tion of  this  work  is  the  last  revision,  and  up  to  this 
date  is  the  final  authority  in  this  country.  Its  defi- 
nitions of  the  word  haptizo  are  here  quoted.  Cita- 
tions from  Greek  authors  are  omitted,  but  the  conclu- 
sions are  given  in  the  exact  words  of  the  dictionary 
itself:  1,  "To  dip  in,  or  under  water;  of  ships,  to 
sink  or  disable  them;  metaphorically  of  the  crowds 
who  flocked  into  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  siege; 
passive,  to  be  drenched;  metaphorically,  soaked  in 
wine,  over  head  and  ears  in  debt,  being  drowned 
with  questions,  or  getting  into  deep  water.  2.  To 
draw  wine  by  dipping  the  cup  in  the  bowl.  3.  To 
baptize.  Middle,  to  dip  oneself,  to  get  oneself  bap- 
tized." 

For  the  New  Testament  Greek  the  accepted  stand- 
ard in  the  world  of  schilarship  to-day  is  a  lexicon 
which  bears  the  name  of  three  authors.  Originally 
it  was  Wilke's  Clavis,  1.  e.,  key,  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  was  written  in  Latin  and  was  intended  to 
discuss,  especially,  the  Greek  words  found  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  those  only.  It  was  worked 
over  later  by  Grimm,  and  this  edition  was  known 
as  Grimm's  Wilke's  Clavis,  and  was  recognized 
among  scholars  as  the  best  New  Testament  Greek 
Lexicon  in  existence.  It  was  later  translated  into 
English  from  the  Latin  with  valuable  additions  by 
Professor  J.  H.  Thayer,  of  the  Harvard  Divinity 
School,  and  in  its  American-English  dress  is  known 
as  Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Tes- 


MEANING  OF  THE  WORD.  295 

lament.  Bevond  all  doubt  it  is  the  best  New  Tes- 
tament Gi-eek- English  Lexicon  that  we  have.  Exact 
quotation  of  its  definitions  is  here  given,  citations 
omitted  as  before:  "I.  1.  Properly  to  dip  repeat- 
edly, to  immerse,  submerge.  2.  To  cleanse  by  dip- 
ping or  submerging,  to  wash,  to  make  clean  with 
water ;  in  the  mid.  and  the  1  aor.  pass.,  to  wash  one- 
self, bathe.  3.  Metaphorically  to  overwhelm ;  and 
alone,  to  inflict  great  and  abounding  calamities  on 
one,  to  be  overwhelmed  with  calamities,  of  those  who 
must  bear  them.  II.  In  the  New  Testament  it  is 
used  particularly  of  the  rite  of  sacred  ablution,  first 
instituted  by  John  the  Baptist,  afterwards  by 
Christ's  command  received  by  Christians  and  ad- 
justed to  the  contents  and  nature  of  their  religion, 
viz.,  an  immersion  in  water,  performed  as  a  sign  of 
the  removal  of  sin,  and  administered  to  those  who, 
impelled  by  a  desire  for  salvation,  sought  admission 
to  the  benefits  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  a.  The 
word  is  used  absolutely,  to  administer  the  rite  of 
ablution,  to  baptize.  Pass.,  to  be  baptized.  Pass., 
in  the  reflex  sense,  to  allow  oneself  to  be  initiated 
by  baptism,  to  receive  baptism ;  followed  by  a  dat. 
of  the  thing  with  which  baptism  is  performed, 
water,  b.  With  prepositions;  aa.  eis,  to  mark  the 
element  into  which  the  immersion  is  made;  to  indi- 
cate the  eff'ect.  bb.  en,  with  dat.  of  the  thing  in 
which  one  is  immersed;  of  the  thing  used  in  bap- 
tizing; with  the  simple  dat.  cc.  Pass,  epi,  relying 
on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  dd.  hupcr,  on  behalf 
of  the  dead,  in  1  Cor.  15 :29." 

The  third  dictionary  to  be  noticed  is  one  which 
devotes  itself  especially  to  the  subject  of  theological 


296  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

terms  used  in  the  New  Testament.  This  was  by 
Professor  Hermann  Cremer,  of  Germany.  We  quote 
from  the  English  translation  of  Professor  William 
Urwick,  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  and 
in  New  York  by  the  Scribners.  The  definition  is  as 
follows,  somewhat  abbreviated,  as  the  discussion  is 
rather  long  for  complete  quotation :  ''The  peculiar 
New  Testament  and  Christian  use  of  the  word — to 
denote  immersion,  submersion  for  a  religious  pur- 
pose, to  baptize — may  be  pretty  clearly  traced  back 
to  the  Levitical  washings."  It  proceeds  to  discuss 
at  length  the  relation  of  these  Levitical  washings  to 
baptism  and  then  discusses  the  design  of  baptism, 
which  is  not  here  in  question,  and  goes  on  to  say, 
"metaphorically  used  haptizein  occurs  in  many  pas- 
sages of  Scripture." 

It  thus  appears  that  the  best  lexical  authorities 
coincide  in  defining  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
"baptize"  as  immerse.* 

Now  we  notice  the  value  of  this  argument.  It 
has  the  merit  of  brevity  and  convenience.  And  it 
must  be  observed  that  these  definitions  were  framed 
in  full  view  of  the  controversies  concerning  bap- 
tism. If  the  opponents  of  immersion  had  discov- 
ered a  really  new  meaning  of  the  word  "baptize" 
and  had  demonstrated  their  success,  it  is  incredible 
that  the  best  authorities  should  have  left  it  out  of 
their  works.  Further,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  these  definitions  are  the  opinions  of  scholars 
who    are    not    Baptists.      Liddell    and    Scott  .were 

*  Definitions  from  other  lexicons,  ancient  and  modern, 
may  be  found  in  Hiscox's  A'i'Tt/  Directory  for  Baptist  churches  and 
in  Christian's  Immersion. 


MEANING  OF  THE  WORD.  297 

clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England;  both  Grimm 
and  Wilke  were  German  Lutherans;  their  translator, 
Professor  Thayer,  was  a  Congregationalist,  and 
Professor  Cremer  is  a  German  Lutheran.  It  is  cer- 
tain, therefore,  that  in  framing  their  definitions 
these  scholars  were  not  led  by  ecclesiastical  preju- 
dice or  preference,  but  by  scholarly  knowledge  of 
the  real  meaning  of  the  word.  Again,  we  must  ob- 
serve that  these  definitions  are  inductions  from  the 
long  continued  patient  accumulations  of  scholars, 
who  have  made  the  study  of  the  Greek  language 
their  special  care.  No  great  dictionary  is  the  off- 
hand work  of  one  man — each  must  be  based  upon 
many  predecessors  and  upon  a  wider  induction  and 
comparison  of  the  facts  of  the  language  behind  it. 
Thus  while  these  three  great  dictionaries  bear  the 
names  of  eminent  scholars,  they  are  the  contribu- 
tions of  a  host  of  other  scholars  through  all  the 
centuries,  and  represent  the  consensus  of  opinion 
of  those  who  have  made  special  investigation  in 
this  department  of  learning.  For  all  these  reasons 
the  argument  is  one  of  great  force,  and  to  every 
candid  mind  it  should  be  convincing. 

Let  us  take  up  now  the  usage  of  the  word  as  it 
appears  in  the  Greek  authors.  As  has  just  been  ob- 
served, lexical  definitions  are  only  briefly  expressed 
inductions  from  linguistic  usage,  which  must  some- 
times be  taken  into  account.  Usually  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  resort  to  this  method  of  treating  a  subject, 
as  the  definitions  of  linguistic  specialists  will  com- 
monly be  accepted.  But  the  importance  and  inter- 
est of  the  controversy  on  Baptism  have  caused  Bap- 
tist scholars,  as  well  as  some  others  who  are  inter- 


298  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ested  in  the  subject,  to  make  this  special  investiga- 
tion into  the  usage  of  the  language  in  order  to  verify 
and  confirm  the  inductions  of  the  lexicographers. 
I>r.  Alexander  Carson  made  good  use  of  this  method 
in  his  day,  though  he  fell  into  some  errors,  but  Dr. 
Thomas  J.  Conant  in  his  Meaning  and  Use  of  Bap- 
tizein  has  left  nothing  to  be  done  or  desired  in  this 
matter — he  has  covered  the  ground. 

An  outline  of  Dr.  Conant's  argument  will  now  be 
given.  The  student  is  referred  to  the  book  itself  for 
a  complete  statement..  (1)  Dr.  Conant  gives  eighty- 
six  examples  of  the  literal  use  of  haptizo  from  dif- 
ferent Greek  authors  to  show  that  they  always  used 
the  word  in  the  sense  of  putting  under  water  or 
other  liquid,  (a)  Fifty-eight  examples  are  first 
quoted  where  the  element  is  not  expressed,  but  im- 
plied. By  the  way  of  illustration  two  of  these  are 
here  given :  Polybius,  in  his  History,  book  III.,  chap- 
ter 72,4,  speaking  of  the  passage  of  the  Roman  army^ 
under  the  Consul  Tiberius,  through  the  river  Tebia,^ 
which  had  been  swollen  by  heavy  rains,  says :  "They 
passed  through  with  difficulty,  the  foot-soldiers  im- 
mersed (baptized)  as  far  as  to  the  breasts."  Achilles 
Tatius,  in  his  story  of  Cliptophon  and  Leucippe, 
book  IV.,  chapter  18,  describing  the  manner  in 
which  the  Egyptian  boatman  drinks  water  from  the 
Nile,  says :  "And  lets  down  his  hand  into  the  water ; 
and  dipping  (baptizing)  it  hollowed,  and  filling  it 
with  water,  he  darts  the  draught  towards  his  mouth, 
and  hits  the  mark."  (b)  The  literal  use  is  further 
exemplified  in  cases  where  the  element  in  which  the 
act  is  performed  is  mentioned  and  construed  with 
or  without  a  preposition.    Here  twenty-eight  exam- 


MEANING  OF  THE   WORD.  299 

pies  are  quoted  aud  all  to  the  same  effect.  Julian 
in  his  Ode  to  Cupid  says:  ''As  I  was  once  twining 
a  garland,  I  found  Cupid  in  the  roses;  and  holding 
by  the  wings  I  immersed  (baptized)  him  into  wine, 
and  took  and  drank  him ;  and  now,  within  my  mem- 
bers, he  tickles  with  his  wings."  Strabo,  in  his 
Geography,  book  XII.,  chapter  5,  section  4,  speaking 
of  the  water  of  a  certain  lake,  says:  ''The  water 
solidifies  so  readily  around  everything  that  is  im- 
mersed (baptized)  into  it,  that  they  draw  up  salt 
crowns   when   they   let   down   a   circle   of   rushes." 

(2)  Dr.  Conant  i^asses  on  to  the  -figurative  use  of 
the  word,  where  the  notion  of  being  overwhelmed,  or 
dipped,  or  plunged  is  expressed.  Here  there  are 
sixty-five  quotations,  all  illustrating  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word.  For  example,  Libanius,  the 
teacher  of  Chrysostom,  refers  to  the  earthquake  in 
which  two  of  his  friends  had  perished,  and  in  speak- 
ing of  this  affliction  says:  ''And  I  myself  am  one 
of  those  submerged  (baptized)  by  that  great  wave." 

(3)  Dr.  Conant  next  gives  the  use  of  the  word  in 
composition  ivith  a  preposition,  and  under  this  head 
quotes  seventeen  passages.  One  of  these,  where  the 
word  is  compounded  with  the  preposition  "in,"  is 
found  in  Plutarch,  Life  of  Sylla,  XXI.,  where  speak- 
ing of  some  dying  soldiers  he  says :  "And  dying  they 
filled  the  marshes  with  blood,  and  the  lake  with 
dead  bodies ;  so  that  until  now,  many  barbaric  bows, 
and  helmets,  and  pieces  of  iron  breast-plates,  and 
swords,  are  found  immersed  (baptized)  in  the 
pools."  Altogether  there  are  given  one  hundred 
and  sixty-eight  examples  from  Greek  authors  in 
every  age  and  of  every  sort,  and  Dr.  Conant  thus 


300  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

sums  up:  "In  all  the  word  has  retained  its  ground 
meaning  without  change.  From  the  earliest  age  of 
Greek  literature  down  to  its  close,  a  period  of  about 
two  thousand  years,  not  an  example  has  been  found 
in  which  the  word  has  any  other  meaning." 

The  strength  of  this  argument  lies  in  the  breadth 
of  the  induction  and  the  completeness  and  finality 
of  the  reasoning.  The  entire  range  of  Greek  litera- 
ture has  been  covered.  Every  reference  made  in  any 
known  lexicon  of  the  language  was  diligently  hunted 
up  and  verified,  and  many  others  were  added  from 
the  author's  own  reading  and  investigation ;  so  that 
it  is  reasonably  certain  that  few  if  any  passages 
bearing  upon  the  usage  of  this  word  in  any  extant 
Greek  author  have  been  overlooked. 

So  much  for  the  literary  usage.  We  turn  now  to 
consider  the  religious  usage  of  the  word,  and  the 
question  before  us  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptizo,  when  it  is  employed  to  denote  the  religious 
rite  of  baptism  and  not  any  ordinary  act  of  dipping. 
Does  it  still  preserve  the  original  meaning  of  dip- 
ping or  immersing?  Here,  to  determine  the  Greek 
usage,  we  must  examine  three  different  sources:  the 
New  Testament,  the  Greek  Fathers  and  the  use  of 
the  Greek  Church  in  modern  times. 

As  to  the  New  Testament  usage,  a  careful  induc- 
tion and  classification  of  all  the  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  the  word  is  used  of  the  Chris- 
tian rite  of  baptism,  will  show  that  the  general  usage 
of  the  language  has  been  faultlessly  adhered  to  by 
the  New  Testament  writers.  Attempts  to  prove  any- 
thing else  have  failed,  and  must  fail.  No  exhaustive 
presentation  of  the  matter  can  here  be  attempted, 


MEANING  OF  THE  WORD.  301 

but  a  few  points  it  is  necessary  to  notice.  There  are 
some  passages  where  the  act  is  merely  mentioned. 
What  are  we  to  say  of  these?  Was  there  any  reason 
why  in  their  use  of  this  word  the  New  Testament 
writers  should  depart  from  the  established  classical 
use?  When  the  word  was  taken  up  into  the  higher 
sphere  of  religious  usage  did  it  therefore  leave  be- 
hind it  the  actual  meaning  it  had?  Is  it  conceivable 
that  the  religious  usage  of  the  word  'baptizo,  de- 
scribing a  religious  ceremony,  should  change  the 
meaning  of  the  word  from  dip  to  sprinkle?  and  were 
there  not  words  for  sprinkling  and  pouring  at  hand 
if  the  New  Testament  writers  desired  to  say  sprinkle 
and  pour  instead  of  dip?  In  truth,  in  the  actual 
use  of  the  word  the  meaning  of  dip  or  plunge  is  al- 
ways appropriate  in  the  New  Testament  for  bap- 
tism; the  substitution  of  any  other  word  would  be 
inappropriate  in  most  cases  and  impossible  in 
some. 

Again,  the  circumstances  attending  the  act  are 
such  as  to  justify  or  require  the  meaning  of  im- 
merse. For  example,  where  "John  was  baptizing 
at  Enon  because  there  was  much  water  there." 
(John  3:23.)  The  effort  to  make  this  mean  that 
there  was  much  drinking  water  there  to  slake  the 
thirst  of  the  crowds  attending,  is  so  evidently  a 
makeshift  as  not  to  require  serious  consideration. 
In  Mark  1 :9  it  is  said  of  our  Lord's  baptism  that  he 
was  "baptized  into  the  Jordan,"  and  that  he  "came 
up  out  of  the  water."  Surely  the  attending  circum- 
stances here  not  only  coincide  with  the  meaning  of 
dip,  but  seem  absolutely  to  require  it ;  and  the  same 
thing  is  true  of  the  famous  passages  in  Acts  8 :38,39, 


302  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

concerning  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip. 
Here  is  an  exact  and  minute  description  of  the  act, 
and  nothing  but  immersion  can  fit  into  the  language 
used;  for  it  is  said  that  "both  went  down  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized 
him,  and  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip."  Fur- 
ther, there  are  two  passages,  Romans  6  :l-4  and  Col. 
2:12,  where  the  symbolism  of  baptism  is  set  forth 
as  a  burial  and  resurrection,  and  these  naturally 
demand  the  classical  and  original  meaning  of  the 
word,  to  put  under.  Various  attempts  have  been 
made  to  break  the  force  of  these  passages,  but  they 
have  appealed  to  the  candid  mind  of  many  a  Psedo- 
baptist  divine  and  scholar,  notable  among  whom 
are  Calvin  and  John  Wesley,  who  both  gave  the 
meaning  of  immerse  at  these  and  other  passages.* 

The  few  passages  of  the  New  Testament  which 
have  been  used  as  against  immersion  are  easily  ex- 
plained to  accord  with  that  meaning.  In  Mark 
7 :3,4,  and  Luke  11 :37,38,  the  dipping  does  not  mean 
baptism,  but  is  easily  shown  to  have  been  in  ac- 
cord with  the  custom  of  the  Jews  at  that  time. 
They  were  accustomed  actually  to  dip  articles  men- 
tioned, washing  them  thoroughly,  as  well  as  to  take 
a  complete  bath  when  they  returned  from  the  mar- 
ket places.  (See  the  various  commentaries,  even  of 
Psedobaptist  scholars,  especially  Meyer,  upon  the 
passages  in  question.)  In  Acts  2:41  the  statement 
is  made  that  three  thousand  were  baptized  in  one 
day  in  Jerusalem,  and  this  has  been  often  shown 
to  have  been  feasible,  both  on  account  of  the  abund- 
*Cf.  Wesley's  and  Calvin's  admissions  Ch.  V,  below. 


MEANING  OP  THE  WORD.  303 

ant  water  supply,  which  is  well  known  to  have  ex- 
isted in  the  city,  and  on  account  of  the  number  of 
the  administrators.  A  modern  parallel  case  is  that 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Telugus,  where  two  thousand 
two  hundred  and  twenty-two  were  baptized  in  one 
day.  The  baptism  of  the  jailer  recorded  in  Acts 
16 :33,  has  sometimes  been  used  as  if  it  made  against 
the  meaning  of  immerse,  but  the  immersion  may 
have  been  performed  in  the  river  which  was  adja- 
cent to  the  city.  We  know  there  was  a  river  there 
beside  which  Lydia  and  others  had  a  praying  place ; 
but  more  probably  the  baptism  was  performed  in 
the  bath  in  the  jailer's  apartments.  The  Romans 
were  accustomed  to  having  baths  in  their  houses, 
and  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  the  jailer's  house 
was  so  furnished.  The  mention  of  the  fact  that  he 
took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night  and  washed 
their  stripes  would  be  in  harmony  with  this  view. 
All  that  we  are  required  to  do  in  this  case  is  to  show 
that  immersion  is  possible,  this  being  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  word.  If  it  were  impossible  we 
might  have  to  seek  another  meaning.  Thus,  exam- 
ined at  every  point  with  careful  and  minute  investi- 
gation, the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  is  seen 
to  coincide  with  the  ordinary  classic  meaning,  as 
there  is  every  reason  that  it  should  do. 

We  notice  now  the  usage  of  the  word  among  the 
Greek  Fathers.  When  the  early  Christian  writers 
spoke  of  baptism  they  did  so  in  a  way  to  indicate 
that  immersion  was  the  act.  The  passage  in  the 
Didache,  Chapter  vii.,  by  the  very  exception  which 
it  allows  shows  that  immersion  was  the  usual  and 
proper  act.    The  passage  is  as  follows:  ''Now  con- 


304  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

cerning  baptism,  baptize  thus :  Having  first  taught 
all  these  things,  baptize  ye  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  living 
(running)  water,  and  if  thou  hast  not  living  (run- 
ning) water,  baptize  in  other  water,  and  if  thou 
canst  not  in  cold  then  in  warm;  but  if  thou  hast 
neither,  pour  thrice  upon  the  head  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Evidently  here  the  ground  meaning  of  baptize  is 
to  immerse.  An  emergency  is  recognized  in  which 
it  was  impossible  to  procure  water  for  immersion. 
Now,  then,  in  such  emergency  the  writer  says 
"pour;"  whereby  it  is  plain  that  in  his  mind  "pour" 
and  "baptize"  are  not  synonymous  terms.  In  other 
words,  in  an  emergency  where  the  proper  act  of 
baptism  is  recognized  as  impossible  some  other  thing 
is  substituted  for  the  right  thing.  This  document 
was  discovered  after  Dr.  Conant  wrote  his  treatise. 
He  quotes  from  the  Greek  Fathers  twenty-eight  pas- 
sages in  which  they  speak  of  the  Christian  rite  of 
baptism  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  they  under- 
stood the  word  to  mean  immersion.  Basil  the 
Great  is  quoted  as  saying:  "Imitating  the  burial  of 
Christ  by  the  immersion  (baptism)  ;  for  the  bodies 
of  those  immersed  (baptized)  are,  as  it  were,  buried 
in  the  water."  Others  are  to  the  same  purport.  Dr. 
Conant  adds  fourteen  passages  from  the  Latin 
Fathers,  who  used  such  Latin  words  about  the  rite 
as  to  show  that  they  understood  the  Greek  word  to 
signify  immersion.  For  example,  Tertullian  has  the 
word  tinyo,  which  originally  meant  to  dip  and  then 
to  dye,  from  which  our  words  tincture  and  tint 
came.    In  another  place  Tertullian  used  mergo;  Am- 


MEANING  OF  THE   WORD.  305 

brose  and  Jerome  also  used  mergo.  In  addition  to 
these  Dr.  Conant  gives  nineteen  quotations  from  the 
Greek  Fathers  in  which  they  employ  the  word  in 
some  illustrative  or  figurative  way,  but  in  harmony 
with  the  idea  of  dipping  or  plunging.  For  example, 
Chrysostom,  in  explaining  the  words  of  our  Lord 
about  his  having  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with, 
says:  ''For  as  he  who  is  immersed  (baptized)  with 
water,  rises  again  with  great  ease,  not  at  all  hin- 
dered by  the  nature  of  the  waters ;  so  also,  he  having 
gone  down  into  death,  with  greater  ease  came  up; 
for  this  cause  he  calls  it  an  immersion  (baptism)." 

In  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Greek 
Church  of  modern  times  we  can  only  say  that  this 
is  in  harmony  with  the  ancient  usage.*  Dr.  Conant 
quotes  from  Alexander  de  Stourdza,  Russian  State- 
Councillor,  who  says :  "The  verb  'baptizo  has,  in 
fact,  but  one  sole  acceptation :  It  signifies  literally, 
and  always,  to  plunge."  Dean  Stanley  in  his  Lec- 
tures on  the  Eastern  Cliurch,  p.  117,  says :  "To  this 
form  (that  is,  immersion)  the  Eastern  Church  still 
rigorously  adheres,  and  the  most  illustrious  and  ven- 
erable portion  of  it,  that  of  the  Byzantine  empire, 
absolutely  repudiates  and  ignores  any  other  mode 
of  administration  as  essentially  invalid."  This  cus- 
tom is  of  course  based  upon  their  understanding 
of  the  word  baptize.  The  usage  of  the  modern  Greek 
Church  clearly  proves  the  same. 

Hence,  we  see  that  in  all  the  range  of  usage  from 
the  earliest  appearance  of  the  word  in  Greek  litera- 
ture to  its  survival  and  continuance  in  the  Greek 
of  to-day  the  word  haptizo  means  to  immerse,  dip, 
*  See  Christian,  Immersion,  p.  192f. 


306  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

put  under  or  into  water  or  some  liquid,  or  in  its 
figurative  sense  into  other  substances.  Tlie  argu- 
ment, then,  from  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  simply 
unanswerable.  Various  attempts  are,  made  here 
and  there  to  refute  it,  but  so  far  as  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "baptize"  is  concerned  the  question 
may  be  regarded  as  finally  settled  for  all  those  who 
have  no  motive  for  seeking  and  maintaining  a  dif- 
ferent view.  Some  of  the  pleas  of  the  opponents  of 
immersion  will  be  considered  in  a  later  chapter. 


LIGHT  FROM    HISTORY.  307 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  ACT  OF  BAPTISM  )  LIGHT  FROM  HISTOEY. 

I.  The  Historical  Study  of  Baptism. 

1.  Value. 

(1)  Why  appeal  to  history. 

(2)  How  use  the  argument. 

2.  Materials  for  the  argument. 

II.  Outline  of  the  History. 

1.  The  Patristic  Age:  100-604. 

(1)  Immersion  the  act. 

(2)  Trine  immersion  usual. 

(3)  Emergency  cases  of  afifusion. 

2.  The  Middle  Ages :  604-1517. 

(1)  Trine  immersion  general  practice. 

(2)  Cases  of  single  immersion. 

(3)  Progress  of  pouring  and  sprinkling. 

3.  The  Reformation :  1517-1648. 

(1)  Among  Romanists.    Both  immersion  and 

affusion,  both  single  and  trine. 

(2)  Among  Reformers.    Immersion  admitted 

as  theory ;  affusion  adopted  as  practice. 

(3)  Among  Anabaptists.     Some  adopted  im- 

mersion, some  used  affusion. 

4.  Modern  Times :  1648-present. 

(1)  Romanists  theoretically  admit  all  forms, 

but  single  affusion  prevails. 

(2)  Greek  Church  practises  trine  immersion. 

(3)  Paedobaptists   recognize   immersion,    but 

practise  single  affusion. 

(4)  Dunkards  practise  trine  immersion. 

(5)  Baptists  and  others  use  single  immersion. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  ACT  OP  BAPTISM.       LIGHT  FROM   HISTORY. 

The  course  of  reasoning  developed  in  the  previous 
chapter  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  haptizo 
and  its  use  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  the 
Christian  rite  of  baptism  is  amply  sufficient  and 
satisfactory  so  far  as  the  Christian  duty  of  baptism 
is  concerned.  The  New  Testament  requirement  of 
an  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  water  is  suffi- 
ciently -established  without  reference  to  any  other 
mode  of  argumentation.  The  purpose  of  the  present 
chapter  is  to  study  the  history  of  the  act  of  baptism, 
with  a  view  to  exhibiting  what  has  been  the  practice 
of  professing  Christians  through  the  centuries  in  re- 
gard to  this  important  rite. 

We  should  consider,  first  of  all,  the  nature  and 
value  of  this  argument  from  history.  The  question 
may  be  raised,  Why  appeal  to  history  at  all?  Does 
not  the  argument  from  the  meaning  of  the  word 
settle  the  matter?  We  do  not  discuss  this  subject 
with  a  view  to  proving  what  baptism  is,  but  for 
other  reasons.  The  prevalence  of  a  custom  even  in 
the  earliest  centuries  does  not  prove  that  it  is  au- 
thorized by  the  New  Testament;  because  it  may 
have  arisen  in  a  subsequent  age  and  very  soon  have 
become  thoroughly  imbedded  in  the  practice  of 
Christians.  We  cannot  say,  therefore,  that  the 
prevalence   of   immersion   among   early   Christians 

308 


LIGHT  FROM    HISTORY.  309 

necessarily  proves  it  to  have  been  the  practice 
of  the  New  Testament.  That  is  established,  as 
we  have  before  seen,  on  other  grounds.  We  ad- 
mit that  history  presents  a  divided  testimony. 
Sprinkling  and  pouring  did  originate  subsequently 
to  the  apostolic  times  and  .steadily  gained  upon  im- 
mersion until  a  majority  of  the  Christian  world 
adopted  that  unscriptural  practice.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  our  appeal  to  history  is  not  to  prove 
immersion,  but  only  to  see,  having  demonstrated 
immersion  from  other  sources,  how  history  corrobo- 
rates the  meaning  of  the  word  in  New  Testament 
usage  by  showing  that  the  actual  practice  for  a  long 
season  did  conform  to  the  New  Testament  require- 
ment. Another  reason  for  appealing  to  history  is 
because  of  the  interest  of  the  subject.  It  is  right 
that  we  should  see  how  Christians  in  all  subsequent 
ages  understood  and  observed  this  ordinance.  The 
light  which  is  reflected  back  upon  the  New  Testa- 
ment by  the  progress  of  history  is  both  interesting 
and  valuable. 

Another  question  is  as  to  the  use  we  should  make 
of  this  argument.  If,  as  has  just  been  admitted,  the 
historical  argument  is  logically  incomplete,  is  it 
worth  anything  to  us  as  a  practical  argument?  Our 
answer  is  that  we  should  use  it  for  no  more  than  it 
is  worth.  Our  first  and  last  appeal  is  to  the  Scrip- 
ture as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Now 
trine  immersion  and  infant  baptism  were  early  prac- 
tised among  Christians,  but  we  reject  these  because 
they  have  no  foundation  in  the  New  Testament.  Im- 
mersion early  existed  and  long  continued  among 
the  followers  of  Christ,  and  it  has  a  foundation  in 


310  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  New  Testament,  and  not  only  so,  but  is  clearly 
demonstrated  to  have  been  the  constant  New  Testa- 
ment practice.  There  is  here  a  clear  distinction. 
We  do  not  place  any  value  upon  the  historical  ar- 
gument for  immersion  other  than  as  confirmatory 
and  illustrative  of  what  is  proved  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament itself.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may,  and 
ought  to,  use  the  historical  argument  for  all  it  is 
worth.  While  not  conclusive  it  is  helpful.  The  long 
prevalence  of  immersion  and  the  exceptional  and 
unfavorable  reception  given  to  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing certainly  count  far  more  for  than  against  im- 
mersion ;  and  however  imperfect  the  historical  argu- 
ment may  be,  it  certainly  can  never  dislodge  us  from 
the  ''^impregnable  rock  of  holy  Scripture." 

The  materials  for  constructing  the  historical  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  immersion  are  so  very  full  and 
rich  that  the  investigator  is  embarrassed  by  the  ex- 
tent of  his  riches.  This  has  been  one  of  the  greatest 
controversies  in  Christian  history,  and  the  literature 
of  the  subject  is  overwhelmingly  abundant.  As  in 
all  such  cases  the  materials  should  be  divided  into 
two — sources  and  authorities.  In  regard  to  the 
sources  of  information  for  the  historical  notices  of 
baptism  these  are  again  twofold — the  literature  and 
the  monuments. 

For  any  period  of  history  the  literary  sources  are 
the  contemporary  writers.  For  example,  if  we  de- 
sire to  know  what  was  the  practice  in  the  early 
Christian  ages,  we  must  study  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers;  and  for  this  we  are  happily  well  equipped 
in  our  days,  because  many  translations  of  the 
Fathers  have  been  made  and  published.     For  the 


LIGHT  PROM   HISTORY.  311 

Middle  Ages  no  general  collection  or  translation  of 
the  church  writers  has  been  made,  or  is  likely  to 
be  made,  as  the  literature  is  very  abundant.  For 
the  Reformation  and  the  modern  times  the  same 
thing  is  true.  The  contemporary  writers  are  in  any 
age  the  sources  of  information.  Thus  what  was  an 
authority  in  one  period  would  simply  by  process 
of  time  become  a  source  in  the  next  period.  For 
their  own  days  the  Fathers  were  authorities,  but 
to  us  they  become  sources. 

Light  is  also  thrown  on  baptism  by  the  monu- 
ments. These  again  are  of  two  sorts — baptisteries 
and  paintings.  Numerous  baptisteries  of  all  ages 
exist  in  various  parts  of  the  world,  and  in  the  cata- 
combs and  pictures  of  ancient  times  there  are  many 
representations  of  the  act  of  baptism  showing  the 
method  of  baptizing  prevailing  at  the  time  such 
baptistery  or  picture  was  made.  Not  many  of  us 
are  likely  to  make  personal  use  of  these  monuments, 
so  we  are  dependent  upon  the  books  which  describe 
them.  Good  work  has  been  done  in  these  directions, 
especially  in  modern  times  by  Dr.  W.  N.  Cote  in  his 
book  on  the  Archaeology  of  Baptism.  There  is  still 
room  here,  however,  for  investigation  and  study, 
and  the  whole  subject  of  the  monumental  and  pic- 
torial representations  of  baptism  needs,  and  will 
repay,  careful  investigation. 

When  we  turn  to  the  authorities  on  the  history  of 
baptism  we  shall  be  greatly  perplexed  by  their  mul- 
titude. In  fact,  all  the  best  church  historians  and 
archaeologists  will  be  in  evidence.  Specially  worthy 
of  mention  are  the  church  historians:  Neander, 
Guericke,   Hase  and   Schafif:   the  famous   work   of 


312  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

Bingham  on  the  Antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church;  Smith  &  Cheetham's  Dictionary  of  Chris- 
tian Antiquities,  and  the  articles  on  Baptism  in 
Herzog's  Encyclopaedia.  Of  Baptist  historians  spe- 
cial mention  should  be  made  of  Crosby,  Armitage, 
Newman  and  Vedder. 

Of  books  directly  on  baptism  in  its  relation  to 
history,  one  of  the  most  notable  is  Robinson's  His- 
tory of  Baptism.  This  was  a  very  excellent  contri- 
bution for  its  time,  and  though  now  out  of  date,  is 
still  valuable  to  the  student  in  making  investiga- 
tion. The  book  of  Dr.  Cote  on  Archaeology  of  Bap- 
tism, is  one  of  great  value.  There  is  likewise  a  little 
work  by  Dr.  Cathcart  on  the  Baptism  of  the  Ages 
which  contains  valuable  information.  Also  the 
small  but  exceedingly  useful,  judicious  and  scholarly 
work  of  Dr.  Henry  S,  Burrage  on  the  Act  of  Bap- 
tism deserves  mention.  It  has  been  mainly  followed 
in  preparing  the  outline  which  is  now  to  be  given. 
The  plan  of  Dr.  Burrage  is  to  give  an  account  from 
the  various  authors  and  sources  as  to  the  practice 
of  baptism  in  their  particular  age,  and  then  to  sum 
up  the  results  in  a  few  brief  remarks  at  the  close 
of  each  chapter. 

In  presenting  an  outline  of  the  historical  argu- 
ment for  immersion  let  us  see  first  what  light  the 
patristic  period  of  Christian  history  throws  upon 
the  subject.  The  literature  of  this  time  reveals 
three  things:      (1)    That  baptism  was  immersion; 

(2)  That  trine  immersion  was  commonly  practised; 

(3)  That  in  rare  cases  exceptions  were  allowed  from 
the  requirement  of  immersion. 

On  the  first  point,  that  baptism  was  by  immersion, 


LIGPIT  FROM   HISTORY.  313 

the  testimony  of  the  patristic  ag^e  is  unanimous. 
The  Dklache,  in  Chapter  VII.,  as  was  pointed  out 
in  our  last  chapter,  plainly  shows  that  immersion 
was  the  prevalent  practice  by  directing  that  it  be 
performed  in  running  water  or  in  a  bath.  To  the 
same  effect  may  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  be 
quoted.*  Bingham,  Book  XI.,  Chapter  11,  Sec,  4, 
after  quoting  Rom.  0:1  and  Col.  2:12,  says:  "And 
as  this  was  the  original  apostolic  practice,  so  it  con- 
tinued to  be  the  universal  practice  of  the  church  for 
many  ages,  upon  the  same  symbolical  reasons  as  it 
was  first  used  by  the  Apostles."  He  then  proceeds 
to  quote  the  author  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
who  says  that  "baptism  was  given  to  represent  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  the  water  his  burial,"  and 
Chrysostom,  who  says,  "our  being  baptized  and  im- 
merged  in  water,  and  our  rising  again  out  of  it, 
is  a  symbol  of  our  descending  into  hell  or  the  grave, 
and  of  our  returning  from  thence."  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem is  quoted  as  saying  that  "as  he  that  goes  down 
into  the  water  and  is  baptized,  and  surrounded  on 
all  sides  by  the  water;  so  the  Apostles  were  bap- 
tized all  over  by  the  Spirit:  the  water  surrounds 
the  body  externally,  but  the  Spirit  incompre- 
hensibly baptizes  the  interior  soul."  Bingham  also 
quotes  from  the  fourth  Council  of  Toledo  as  fol- 
lows :  "The  immersion  in  water  is  as  it  were  the 
descending  into  the  grave,  and  the  rising  out  of  the 
water  a  resurrection."  Likewise  he  quotes  from 
Ambrose  who  speaking  to  a  Christian  says :  "Thou 
wast  asked.  Dost  thou  believe  in  God  the  Father 

*  Most  of   these   citations  are  taken  fi-om  Bingham.  Bur- 
rage  and  Cote. 


314  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

Almighty?  And  thou  didst  answer,  I  believe:  and 
then  thou  wast  immerged  in  water,  that  is  buried." 
Burrage  (Act  of  Baptism,  Chapter  2)  gives  a  num- 
ber of  quotations  from  the  early  Fathers  on  this 
same  point.  A  few  will  be  noted.  In  the  so-called 
Epistle  of  Barnahas  (probably  about  119  A.  D.) 
are  found  the  following  words:  "We  go  down  into 
the  water  full  of  sins  and  pollutions,  but  come  up 
out  again  bringing  forth  fruit,  having  in  our  heart 
the  fear  and  hope  which  are  in  Jesus  by  the  Spirit." 
The  first  detailed  description  of  the  act  of  baptism 
is  by  Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  his  first  Apology 
about  A.  D.  139.  His  language  is  given  as  follows: 
"But  we  will  also  describe  the  manner  in  which  we 
consecrated  ourselves  to  God,  having  been  made 
new  by  Christ,  that  we  may  not  seem  by  omitting 
this,  to  deal  dishonestly  in  our  exposition.  As 
many  as  are  convinced  and  believe  those  things  that 
are  taught  and  said  by  us  to  be  true,  and  as  a 
promise  that  they  are  able  to  live  thus,  are  taught 
to  pray  and  to  ask  God  with  fasting  the  forgiveness 
of  their  former  sins,  we  ourselves  fasting  and  pray- 
ing with  them.  Thereupon  they  are  led  by  us  where 
there  is  water,  and  are  regenerated  by  the  same 
mthod  of  regeneration  with  which  we  also  ourselves 
were  regenerated;  for  in  the  name  of  God,  the 
Father  of  all  and  Lord,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  then  receive 
the  bath  in  water,"  To  the  same  effect  is  quoted 
the  Shepherd  of  Hennas,  believed  to  have  been  writ- 
ten about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  (book 
iii.,  sec.  4,  chap.  16 :  "For  before  a  man  receives  the 
name  of  the  Son  of  God  he  is  consigned  to  death; 


LIGHT  FROM   HISTORY.  315 

but  when  he  receives  this  seal  he  is  set  free  from 
death  and  delivered  unto  life.  But  this  seal  is 
water  into  which  we  go  down  devoted  to  death,  but 
come  up  assigned  to  life."  Irenaeus  (Against  Here- 
sies, book  iii.,  chap.  19)  says:  ''Our  bodies  through 
this  bath  (lavacrum)  have  received  that  which  leads 
to  an  incorruptible  unity."  Tertullian  in  his  tract, 
Concerning  BajjUsm,  has  a  good  many  things  to 
say.  Among  others  is  this :  ''The  law  of  immersion 
has  been  imposed,  and  the  form  has  been  pre- 
scribed;" and  in  another  place:  "With  so  great 
simplicity,  without  pomp,  without  any  considerable 
novelty  of  preparation — finally,  without  expense — a 
man  is  let  down  into  the  water,  and  while  a  few 
words  are  spoken,  is  immersed;"  and  in  regard  to 
the  place  of  baptism  Tertullian  says:  "There  is  no 
difference  whether  one  is  washed  in  the  sea  or  in  a 
pool,  in  a  river  or  in  a  fountain,  in  a  lake  or  in  a 
canal."  He  makes  no  mention  of  a  pitcher  or  a 
bowl. 

In  the  time  succeeding  the  Council  of  Nicsea  we 
find  the  same  consensus  of  witnesses.  Athanasius 
is  quoted  by  Burrage  as  saying  of  a  newly  made 
Christian :  "Thou  didst  imitate,  in  the  sinking 
down,  the  burial  of  the  Master ;  but  thou  didst  rise 
again  from  thence  before  works,  witn'essing  the 
works  of  the  resurrection."  A  description  of  the 
rite  of  baptism  is  given  by  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, about  350,  who  says:  "After  these  things 
ye  were  led  by  the  hand  to  the  sacred  font  of  divine 
baptism,  as  Christ  from  the  cross  to  the  prepared 
tomb.  And  each  was  asked  if  he  believed  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 


316  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Spirit,  and  ye  professed  the  same  profession,  and 
sunk  thrice  into  the  water,  and  again  came  up, 
thus  by  a  symbol  shadowing  forth  the  burial  of 
Christ."  The  next  passage  is  quoted  from  Basil, 
bishop  of  Csesarea,  where  he  speaks  of  emersion 
from  the  water  as  well  as  immersion  into  the  water, 
as  follows:  "But  concerning  the  emersion  in  bap- 
tism, I  hardly  know  why  it  should  occur  to  you  to 
ask  if  you  received  immersion  to  fulfill  the  figure 
of  the  three  days.  For  it  is  not  possible  to  be  im- 
mersed thrice  unless  one  emerges  as  many  times." 
Gregory  Nazianzen  is  quoted  as  saying:  "Coming 
to  the  water,  the  element  cognate  to  the  earth,  we 
hide  ourselves  in  it  as  the  Saviour  hid  himself  in 
the  earth."  And  Jerome  speaks  to  the  effect  that 
"we  are  dipped  in  water  that  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity  may  appear  to  be  but  one,  and  therefore, 
though  we  be  thrice  put  under  the  water  to  repre- 
sent the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  yet  it  is  reputed  but 
one  baptism."  The  eloquent  Chrysostom,  the 
famous  preacher  of  Antioch  and  Constantinople,  in 
his  25th  Homily  is  cited  as  saying :  "In  this  symbol 
(baptism)  are  fulfilled  the  pledges  of  our  covenant 
with  God:  death  and  burial,  resurrection  and  life; 
and  these  take  place  all  at  once.  For  when  we  sink 
our  heads  under  the  water,  the  old  man  is  buried 
as  in  a  tomb  below  and  wholly  sunk  forev^er ;  then, 
as  we  raise  them  up,  the  new  man  rises  again." 
Augustine  in  his  sermon  on  the  mystery  of  baptism 
is  quoted  as  saying:  "In  this  font,  before  we  dip 
your  whole  body,  we  ask  you,  Believest  thou  in  God, 
the  omnipotent  Father  ?  After  you  averred  that  you 
believed,  we  immersed  three  times  your  head  in  the 


LIGHT  FROM   HISTORY.  317 

sacred  font."  Citations  similar  to  these  might  be 
multiplied.  These  are  only  illustrative  examples, 
and  so  far  as  the  patristic  authors  are  concerned 
their  mentions  and  descriptions  of  baptism  are  such 
as  to  indicate  that  all  through  the  patristic  period 
the  regularly  accepted  act  of  baptism  was  the  same. 
As  to  the  practice  of  trine  immersion,  many  of 
the  passages  already  cited  show  that  this  also  was 
the  common  custom.  Tertullian  early  in  the  third 
century  distinctly  so  declares.  As  quoted  by  Bing- 
ham (Ant.,  book  xi.,  chap.  11,  sec.  6)  he  says:  "Non 
semel  sed  ter  ad  singula  nomina  in  personas 
singulas  tinguimur;"  and  in  another  place  distinct- 
ly, "ter  mergitamur" — thrice  are  we  immersed. 
Burrage  says  (pp.  77,78)  in  quoting  from  Gregory 
the  Great :  "Let  the  priest  baptize  with  a  triple  im- 
mersion, but  with  only  one  invocation  of  the  Holy 
Trinity."  Leander,  Bishop  of  Seville,  wrote  to 
Gregory  in  regard  to  the  matter,  saying  that  the 
Arians  in  Spain  claimed  that  the  Trinitarians  by 
using  three  baptisms  virtually  acknowledged  three 
Gods,  and  Gregory  in  reply  spoke  as  follows :  "Con- 
cerning the  three  immersions  in  baptism,  you  have 
judged  very  truly  already  that  different  customs 
do  not  prejudice  the  holy  church  whilst  the  unity  of 
the  faith  remains  entire.  The  reasons  why  we  use 
three  immersions  is  to  signify  the  mystery  of 
Christ's  three  days'  burial,  that,  whilst  an  infant  is 
thrice  lifted  up  out  of  the  water,  the  resurrection 
on  the  third  day  may  be  expressed  thereby.  But  if 
any  one  thinks  it  is  rather  done  in  regard  to  the 
holy  Trinity,  a  single  immersion  in  baptism  does  in 
no  way  prejudice  that;  for  so  long  as  the  unity  of 


318  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  substance  is  preserved  in  three  persons,  it  is  no 
harm  whether  a  child  be  baptized  with  one  im- 
mersion or  three,  because  three  immersions  may 
represent  the  Trinity  of  persons  and  one  immersion 
the  unity  of  Godhead.  But  forasmuch  as  heretics 
now  baptize  the  infant  with  three  immersions,  I 
think  you  ought  not  to  do  so,  lest  the  immersion  be 
interpreted  as  a  division  of  the  Godhead."  This 
decision  of  Gregory  was  confirmed  as  the  law  of  the 
church  by  the  council  held  at  Toledo  in  633,  which 
declared  that  a  three-fold  immersion  is  not  neces- 
sary. Cote*  says :  ''The  custom  of  trine  immersion, 
which  began  as  early  as  the  third  century,  and  was, 
according  to  the  admission  of  Tertullian,  'more  than 
the  Lord  prescribed  in  the  gospel,'  continued  until 
the  Reformation." 

In  regard  to  the  third  point  of  interest  concern- 
ing baptism  in  the  patristic  age,  it  appears  that  in 
rare  cases  exception  was  allowed  from  the  require- 
ment of  immersion.  The  Didache,  as  we  have  seen, 
admitted  pouring,  but  only  when  it  was  not  pos- 
sible to  get  water  enough  to  immerse.  Likewise 
Cyprian  is  quoted  by  Burrage  (p.  45)  as  making 
answer  to  an  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  legitimacy 
of  affusion  in  the  following  terms:  "You  have  in- 
quired also,  dearest  son,  what  I  think  of  those  who 
in  sickness  and  debility  obtain  the  grace  of  God — 
whether  they  are  to  be  accounted  legitimate  Chris- 
tians in  that  they  are  poured  upon,  not  washed  with 

the  saving  water In  the  saving  sacraments, 

when  need  compels  and  God  vouchsafes  his  mercy, 
his  compendious  methods  confer  the  whole  benefit 
*  Archaeology  of  Baptism,  p.  49. 


LIGHT  FROM   HISTORY.  319 

on  believers.    Nor  should  it  disturb  any  one  that  the 
sick  seem  only  to  be  sprinkled  or  affused  with  water 

when  they  obtain  the  grace  of  the  Lord 

Whence  it  is  apparent  that  the  sprinkling  also  of 
water  has  like  force  with  the  saving  washing,  and 
that  when  this  is  done  in  the  church,  the  faith  both 
of  the  giver  and  the  receiver  is  entire.  All  holds 
good,  and  is  consummated  and  perfected  by  the 
power  of  the  Lord  and  the  truth  of  faith."  This 
very  diplomatic  letter  of  Cyprian  expresses  with 
marked  caution  his  opinion.  The  letter  referred  to 
Novatian,  who  afterwards  became  famous.  He  was 
nearly  dead  and  was  poured  upon.  He  lived  and 
was  afterwards  presbyter,  when  the  question  of  the 
irregularity  of  his  baptism  was  brought  up  against 
him.  It  is  evident  from  this  letter  that  anything 
else  than  immersion  was  considered  to  be  very  ex- 
ceptional, very  doubtful,  and  only  under  circum- 
stances of  dire  necessity  to  be  admitted,  and  the 
necessity  for  baptism  was  intensified  by  the  exist- 
ing belief  that  it  was  essential  to  salvation.  There  • 
is  little  question,  therefore,  that  if  baptism  had 
not  been  believed  to  be  thus  efficacious,  the  substi- 
tution of  afifusion  for  immersion  would  not  have 
arisen. 

Passing  over  into  the  mediaeval  period,  we  shall 
find  here  also  three  lines  of  inquiry  to  be  pursued. 
In  regard  to  trine  immersion,  this  continued  to  be 
the  generally  accepted  practice.  This  appears  from 
the  writings  (quoted  by  Burrage)  of  such  men  as 
John  of  Damascus,  750;  Venerable  Bede,  673; 
Rabanus  Maurus,  847;  Hincmar  of  Eheims,  845; 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  1150 ;  Bonaventura,  1274.    All 


320  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHUECHES. 

these  writers  show  in  various  ways  that  immersion 
in  the  threefold  form  was  the  accepted  practice  of 
their  times. 

We  come  now  to  the  evidence  offered  by  bap- 
tisteries. Dr.  Cote  gives  (p.  151)  the  following: 
"During  the  dark  days  of  imperial  persecutions  the 
primitive  Christians  of  Rome  found  a  ready  refuge 
in  the  Catacombs,  where  they  constructed  bap- 
tisteries for  the  administration  of  the  rite  by  im- 
mersion. The  most  remarkable  of  these  is  the  bap- 
tistery in  the  Catacomb  of  San  Pouziano,  on  the 
right  side  of  the  Via  Portuensis,  and  at  a  short  dis- 
tance from  the  modern  Porta  Portese.  Through  this 
cemetery  a  stream  of  water  runs,  the  channel  of 
which  is  divided  into  a  reservoir,  which  was  used 
for  administering  baptism  by  immersion  from  the 
first  to  the  fourth  centuries."  After  Constantine's 
conversion  it  was  possible  to  make  these  baptisteriea 
public,  and  they  were  usually  built  apart  from  the 
church,  though  connected  with  it.  Dr.  Cote  re- 
marks that  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  bap- 
tisteries were  generally  of  good  size,  and  sometimes 
very  large.  "The  Church  of  Santa  Sophia,  at  Con- 
stantinople, had  a  most  spacious  baptistery  attached 
to  it,  in  which  one  of  the  councils  of  the  church  as- 
sembled." An  idea  of  the  size  of  some  of  these 
edifices  may  be  formed  when  we  remember  that  once 
at  Antioch  three  thousand  persons  received  bap- 
tism at  one  time.  As  infant  baptism  grew  upon  the 
church,  baptisteries  were  made  small  enough  for  the 
immersion  of  infants  and  were  placed  near  the  doors 
of  the  churches ;  many  of  larger  size,  however,  were 
still  preserved  for  the  immersion  of  adults.    There 


LIGHT  FROM   HISTORY.  321 

is  a  baptistery  at  a  sliort  distance  from  the  church 
of  St.  John  Lateran  in  Rome,  which  is  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  the  bath  of  Constantine.  This,  of 
course,  is  a  mistake  so  far  as  Constantine  is  con- 
cerned, but  there  is  the  baptistery,  and  it  is  very 
ancient.  Cote  describes  it  thus :  *'In  the  centre  of 
the  building  is  a  magnificent  circular  basin,  three 
feet  deep,  lined  and  paved  with  marble.  It  occupies 
a    large   proportion    of   the    building,    being   about 

twenty-five  feet  in  diameter The  water  was 

conducted  to  the  font  from  the  adjoining  Claudian 
aqueduct,  the  remains  of  which  are  still  seen."     On 
page  172  Dr.  Cote  says:     ''At  Nocera  dei  Pagani, 
on  the  railroad  from  Naples  to  Castellamare,  is  a 
very  interesting  church,  named  Santa  Maria  Mag- 
giore,  Avhich  was  formerly  a  Roman  bath,  restored 
and  employed  as   a   baptistery  in   the   fourth   cen- 
tury.   ......    A  descent  of  three  steps  leads  to 

the  bottom  of  the  basin,  which  bears  a  strong  re- 
semblance to  that  of  the  baths  of  Pompeii,  and  was 
evidently  used  for  the  administration  of  baptism  by 
immersion."  These  examples  will  suffice.  The 
student  is  referred  to  Dr.  Cote  and  others  for  more 
elaborate  descriptions  of  these  ancient  baptisteries. 
In  the  Middle  Ages  there  seem  also  to  have  been 
some  cases  of  single  immersion,  though  this  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  at  all  common.  Dr.  Burrage 
mentions  one  case  of  a  proposal  to  depose  a  pres- 
byter for  practising  single  immersion,  but  this  must 
have  been  exceptional.  In  some  respects  the  latter 
part  of  the  mediipval  period  was  an  age  of  transi- 
tion in  regard  to  the  practice  of  immersion  for  bap- 
tism.    Some  very  important  advances  were  made 


322  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

during;  this  time  toward  the  acceptance  of  pouring 
and  sprinkling  in  the  room  of  immersion.  Robinson 
{History  of  Baptism,  pp.  428,  429)  states  that  in  the 
year  754  Pope  Stephen  III.,  who  had  fled  into 
France,  was  questioned  by  the  monlis  of  Crecy  as  to 
whether  it  was  lawful  to  pour  water  upon  an  infant 
in  danger  of  death,  and  Stephen  answered:  "If 
such  a  baptism  were  i)erformed  in  such  a  case  of 
necessity  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  it  should 
be  held  valid."  Chrystal*  and  Burragef  followed 
Robinson  in  this  statement;  but  its  authenticity  has 
been  denied  and  it  cannot  be  accepted  as  certainly 
true.  If  it  be  true,  this  was  the  entering  wedge  for 
the  admission  of  pouring  and  sprinkling  within  the 
Catholic  church.  It  is  not  until  many  years  later  that 
we  find  anything  definite  as  to  the  substitution  of 
pouring  and  sprinking  for  immersion.  The  cele- 
brated Thomas  Aquinas,  who  died  in  1274,  devotes 
an  article  of  his  great  work,  Siimma  Thcologiae.  to 
the  question  of  the  form  of  baptism.!  He  here  dis- 
cusses the  question  whether  immersion  in  water  is 
necessary  to  baptism,  and  defends  the  negative, 
though  he  admits  the  importance  and  binding  nature 
of  immersion  as  the  more  fitting  form  and  the  more 
common.  He  concludes  that  as  water  is  the  neces- 
sary element,  and  washing  the  symbol,  therefore,  in 
case  of  necessity,  on  account  of  the  weakness  of  the 
child,  or  the  impossibility  of  securing  enough  water, 
a  pouring  might  be  admitted.    He  argues  that  such 

*  History  of  the  Modes  of  Baptism,  p.  101. 
t  Act  of  Baptism,  p.  94. 

I  It  is  found  in  Part  III.,  Question  LXVI.,  Article  VII., 
Vol.  VI.,  p.  566,  Drioux's  Edition. 


LIGHT  FROM    HISTORY.  323 

an  aspersion  may  have  taken  place  at  Pentecost  on 
account  of  the  number  that  were  baptized.  Un- 
doubtedly the  opinion  of  this  great  theologian  had 
much  weight  in  forming  the  customs  of  the  Catholic 
church.  We  see  that  the  decision  of  Pope  Stephen 
and  the  teaching  of  Thomas  Aquinas  prepared  the 
way  for  the  change  which  speedily  followed.  The 
Council  of  Ravenna,  which  was  not,  however,  a  gen- 
eral, but  only  a  provincial  council,  in  1311  decided 
that  aspersion  could  be  admitted  as  an  alternative. 
Burrage*  says:  "At  the  Council  of  Ravenna,  in 
1311,  it  was  made  allowable  to  administer  baptism 
either  by  sprinkling  or  immersion:  'Baptism  is  to 
be  administered  by  trine  aspersion  or  immersion.  " 
He  likewise  quotes  Brenner,  a  Roman  Catholic 
writer,  as  follows:  ''Thirteen  hundred  years  was 
baptism  generally  and  regularly  an  immersion  of  the 
person  under  the  water,  and  only  in  extraordinary 
cases  a  sprinkling  or  poijjnng  with  water;  the  latter, 
moreover,  was  disputed  as  a  mode  of  baptism— nay, 
even  forbidden."'  The  decision  of  the  Council  of 
Ravenna  is  justly  taken  to  be  the  turning  point  in 
the  practice  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and 
that  decision  greatly  influenced  the  Protestant  Re- 
formers, because  in  their  time  affusion  had  been  in 
Europe  for  two  hundred  years  the  alternative  form. 
It  was  perfectly  natural  that  the  easier  method 
•should  gain  on  the  more  difficult,  especially  in  the 
case  of  infants  and  persons  of  weak  constitution. 
The  statement  of  the  case  in  the  words  of  Dean 
Stanley  (Christian  Institutions,  p.  21)  is  as  fol- 
lows:  ''For  the  first  thirteen  centuries  the  almost 
*  P.  119  f. 


324 


(HiDlXANl'KS  OK   '11 1  K   (MH'KCIIKS. 


universal  jn-julicc  of  haplism  was  (lial  of  which  wo 
read  in  llic  New  TcslanHMil,  aiui  whicli  is  the  very 
incaiiinii  of  llic  word  'ha|tli/,o/  thai  lhos(^  who  were 
I»ap(iy,<Ml  were  |iliini;('«l,  siil>iii('in<Mi,  iiniiicrsod  iiilo 
(h<>  w  a  (('!'." 

Al  (h<'  h('i;iimiiiii  of  liio  lioloriiial  ion  itoiiod  I  hci'c 
liad  Itccn  an  interval  of  I  wo  hundred  yeais  since  I  he 
decision  of  liie  <'ouiH-il  of  Ixavcnna.  NN'ilhin  lliis 
lime  (he  |>ra»(ice  of  allusion  had  sleadily  gained 
upon  llial  (d'  ininiersion;  so  llial  when  (he  Kid'ornia 
lion  came  Ihe  practice  (d'  spi-iiiUIinj;'  and  pouriu<>- 
lor  l>a|>(ism  w  as  excry  where,  (houi^h  no(  ex(dtisi\<d\\ 
in  usv.  In  (he  period  of  (he  i\erornia(  i(Ui  ilsell'.  Hie 
si(na(ion  may  lie  summed  n|)  by  saying  Ihal  (here 
was  endless  confusion.  There  was  no  uniform 
jtraclice  amoiii;  eilher  Catholics  or  rrotestaiHs. 
Some  imuHMsed,  hut  |»rol»al)ly  the  majority  si»rinkle<l 
(U'  piuired. 

Amoni;-  the  Ifomanists  both  immersion  and  af- 
fusion, sinjile  and  Irine.  wefe  still  in  voune.  .lanKV^ 
Sadolel,  secretary  to  I'ope  Le(»  X.,  is  <piotc(l  by 
lluri-auc  (p.  l.")!))  as  follows:  "Our  trine  immersion 
in  wa(er  at  baptism,  and  our  trine  emei-sion.  deiH)|o 
that  wc  are  buried  with  Cjirisl  in  (1h'  failh  of  the 
true  Trinity,  and  that  wc  rise  ajiain  with  Christ  in 
(he  same  belief."  |(  (hiis  ai»i>ears  dial  in  the  be- 
j;innin^  of  (he  Iveformation  ]»eriod  trine  imnnMsion 
was  still  Ihe  ])revah>nl  pi-actice  of  the  K'oman 
Church.  The  Council  of  Ti-ent  (  Iturra.ue,  p.  I  I  If.) 
put  forth  a  ca(<'(hism  wliich  admils  that  there  were 
three  ways  of  administerino  bapt  ism  ;  (he  candidates 
were  immersed  into  the  wat<'r.  or  had  (he  waler 
jtouit'd  U|>on  (Iwui,  or  were  sprinkled  w  i(h  (lie  water; 


LIGHT  FROM    HISTORY.  325 

and  niakos  it  a  niattor  of  inditference  which  ono  of 
these  ways  was  a<h)j»(ed.  This  folh)ws  <he  opinion 
of  Tlionias  Aijninas,  (hat  the  lhin<;'  signiticd  was  Iho 
washin<;-  away  of  sins,  and  jnsl  so  tliere  was  the 
ap]»lica(ion  of  water  with  that  symbolic  reference 
in  view  the  quantity  was  not  <>reatly  important.  It 
also  stated  that  whether  the  ablution  were  perform- 
ed once  or  thrice  was  a  matter  of  indifference,  and 
the  directions  conclude  by  say i no-  that  the  rite  which 
any  one  tinds  })i*(n'ailini>'  in  his  own  con<»re<iation  is 
to  be  retained.  Thus  (he  (\))incil  of  Trent  left  Ihe 
(piestion  as  to  the  act  (Mitirely  with  the  i-ecipient, 
and  with  the  local  churches  in  the  different  parts 
of  the  world.  This  may  be  said  to  have  linally  fixed 
the  practice  of  fhe  Koman  Catholic  Church.  It  mat- 
ters not  whether  (he  bajjtism  be  performed  by 
sprinklinji".  jiourin";  or  immersion,  whetiier  it  be 
sinjile  or  threefold.  The  pi-actice  of  immersion  long 
prevailed  in  the  cathedral  of  Milan,  but  according 
to  recent  information  received  by  the  author  it  now 
amounts  only  to  the  di]>ping  of  (he  back  jyart  of  the 
infant's  head. 

Among  (he  Reformers  there  was  great  diversity  of 
sentiment,  though  pei'haps  not  nuu^h  in  practice. 
Their  leaders,  Luther,  Zwiiigli  and  Talvin  admitted 
that  inuiH'rsion  was  the  ])rimitive  jiractice  and  was 
still  valid,  if  not  ]>referable,  but  they  acijuiesced  in 
the  existing  custom  of  alTusion.  The  Confessions  of 
Faith  have  little  or  nothing  to  say  on  this  i)oint. 
For  instance,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Article  9, 
teaches  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation  and 
that  children  ought  to  be  baptized,  condemning  the 
Anabaptists  who  teach  otherwise;  but  it  says  noth- 


326  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ing  as  to  immersion  or  pouring.  Luther's  Small 
Cateciiism  in  Part  TV.  treats  of  the  Sacrament  of 
Holy  Baptism.  The  answer  to  the  question,  ''What 
is  baptism?''  is,  ''Baptism  is  not  simply  common 
water,  but  it  is  the  water  comprehended  in  God's 
command,  and  connected  with  God's  Word."  He 
goes  on  to  sa^'  that  it  "works  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  delivers  from  death  and  the  devil,  not  that  there 
is  any  power  in  the  water,  but  that  it  is  the  w^ater 
with  the  Word.''  In  answering  the  fourth  question, 
however,  there  is  an  evident  leaning  to  immersion. 
The  question  is,  "What  does  such  baptizing  with 
water  signify?  Answer:  It  signifies  that  the  old 
Adam  in  us  is  to  be  drowned  by  daily  sorrow  and 
repentance,  and  perish  with  all  sins  and  evil  lusts; 
and  that  the  new  man  should  daily  come  forth  again 
and  rise,  who  shall  live  before  God  in  righteousness 
and  purity  forever."  For  this  opinion  he  adduces 
Romans  the  sixth  chapter  and  fourth  verse.  We 
see  how  diplomatically  the  question  as  to  the  act  is 
evaded,  though  we  know  from  other  sources  that 
Luther  preferred  immersion.  The  same  is  true  in 
regard  to  the  Helvetic  Confessions,  both  the  first 
and  the  second,  "where  the  necessity  of  baptism  and 
infant  baptism  are  taught,  but  the  question  of  the 
act  is  left  without  definite  statement.  Likewise  the 
same  thing  is  true  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
These  statements  may  be  verified  by  consulting 
Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom  in  the  appropriate 
I)laces.  Calvin"  says:  "Whether  the  baptized  per- 
son is  wholly  immersed,  and  that  three  times  or  once, 
or  whether  water  is  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon 
*  InstiLutes,  b.  iv.,  chapter  xv.,  i  19. 


LIGHT  FROM   HISTORY. 


327 


him,  is  of  no  coii^eciiienco.  lu  that  matter  the  church 
ought  to  be  free  according  to  the  ditferent  countries. 
The  very  word  'baptize/  however,  signifies  to  im- 
merse, and  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  observed 
by  the  ancient  church."  We  thus  see  how  closely 
Calvin  in  this  regard  followed  the  practice  of  the 
Roman  Church,  the  opinions  of  Thomas  Aquinas  and 
other  theologians  of  that  communion.  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  the  reforming  Protestants  of  the  six- 
teenth century  did  not  throw  off  this  error.  It  is 
greatly  to  be  regretted  that  they  did  not  recur  to 
the  original  practice  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
they  themselves  admitted  to  be  immersion.  The 
Protestants  by  endorsing  the  error  of  Rome  in  this 
regard  entailed  upon  the  Christian  world  a  con- 
troversy which  has  not  yet  subsided. 

A -very  interesting  question  is  in  regard  to  the 
practice  of  the  Anabaptists.  It  is  certain  that  not 
all  of  these  practised  immersion.  It  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  some  did.  Among  the  Swiss  Anabaptists 
it  appears  that  at  first  there  was  no  attempt  to  re- 
instate immersion,  ^tantz.  Blaurock  and  Huebmaier 
practised  affusion;  but  Grebel,  it  seems  clear,  in- 
sisted on  immersion  (Burrage,  p.  180  f.)  There  like- 
wise seems  to  have  been  difference  in  the  practice  of 
the  Anabaptists  in  Germany,  in  Holland  and  in 
England.  In  regard  to  the  Mennonites,  there  seems 
to  be  some  doubt  so  far  as  their  statements  are  con- 
cerned, but  it  is  commonly  admitted  that  some 
of  them  practised  immersion.  Burrage  quotes  Dr. 
H.  S.  Osgood  as  saying :  ''In  all  of  Menno's  writings 
he  has  found  only  two  passages  which  seem  to  in- 
dicate the  mode  of  baptism  practised  by  Menno,  in 


328  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

both  of  Avhieh  lie  refers  to  a  handful  of  water,  as 
though  it  was  performed  bv  pouring  or  sprinkling." 
Says  Professor  Yedder:  "Early  English  Baptists 
like  those  of  the  Continent,  practised  both  affusion 
and  inunersion,  laying  stress  rather  on  the  nature 
of  the  church,  and  the  unscripturalness  of  infant 
baptism  than  on  the  outward  act."* 

Doubtless  some  of  the  English  Anabaptists  did 
not  practise  immersion,  like  their  brethren  on  the 
Continent ;  but  just  Avhen  they  began  the  practice 
has  been  much  debated.  It  is  a  fact  beyond  ques- 
tion, however,  that  the  confession  of  the  seven 
churches  in  and  about  London  in  1644  shows  that  by 
that  time  immersion  was  their  regular  practice. 
Professor  Yedder  {Short  Histonj,  p.  115)  says  of 
this  confession  that  it  specifies:  "That  the  way  and 
manner  of  dispensing  this  ordinance  is  dipping  or 
plunging  the  body  under  water.  The  conf elisions 
issued  before  this  time  are  not  so  explicit  in  defining 
baptism  as  immersion,  but  they  are  e<jually  plain 
in  placing  baptism  before  participation  in  the 
Lord's  Supper." 

This  very  imperfect  survey  of  the  Reformation 
period  confirms  the  statement  made  in  the  beginning 
that  this  was  a  time  of  confusion ;  that  there  was 
uncertainty  and  divergence  of  practice  in  all  the 
bodies  of  professing  Christians;  but  certainly  from 
this  time  a  line  of  cleavage  may  be  distinctly  traced. 
Among  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  Paedobaptists 
immersion  declines,  while  among  the  Baptists  and 
their  followers  there  is  henceforth  no  divergence  of 
practice  or  opinion. 

*  Vedder's  Stiort  Eistory  of  the  Baptists,  p.  113. 


LIGHT  FROM    HISTORY.  329 

In  regard  to  the  modern  period  little  needs  to  be 
said;   for  it  has  been   foreshadowed   in   what   has 
already  been  stated.     Among  the  Romanists  trine 
baptism  has  entirely  ceased.  Pouring  and  sprinkling 
are  the  rule,  but  there  may  be  some  sporadic  cases 
of   immersion.      The    Greek    Church   still    practises 
trine  immersion ;  and  many  Psedobaptists  recognize 
immersion  as  baptism.    Whenever  one  who  has  been 
immersed   applies    for   admission    into    their    com- 
munities  usually   no   sprinkling   or   pouring  is   re- 
quired; they  thus  admit  the  validity  of  immersion, 
and  in  some  cases  they  even  practise  it.     There  are 
many  familiar  instances  where  Methodist,  Episco- 
palian  and   Presbyterian   ministers   in    compliance 
with  the  request  of  candidates  have  immersed  them. 
Still    the    majority    of    Psedobaptists    now    accept 
sprinkling  and  pouring.     The  grounds  upon  which 
they  do  so  will  be  discussed  in  another  chapter.    Of 
minor  sects,  the  Dunkards  still  practise  trine  im- 
mersion, while  the  Quakers  reject  all  baptism,  and 
there  may  be  others  among  whom  various  views  pre- 
vail.   The  Baptists  and  those  like  them  insist  upon 
and  stand  for  a  single  immersion  as  the  true  scrip- 
tural baptism.    They  hold  to  this  position  because  of 
a  profound  and  abiding  conviction  that  it  was  the 
way  which  our  Lord  liimself  prescribed;  and  what- 
ever may  be  the  historical  perversions  of  the  rite,  or 
their  own  difficulties  in  view  of  the  obscurities  of 
history,  they  insist  that  their  practice  now  is  in  ac- 
cord with  the  clear  teachings  of  the  New  Testament, 
with  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  with  the  admis- 
sions of  Christian  scholars  in  all  ases. 


330  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  V.. 

THE  ACT  OF  BAPTISM. 
CONCESSIONS  OF  AFPUSIONISTS. 

I.  Examples  of  Concession. 

1.  Romanists. 

2.  Protestant  Piiedobaptists. 

(1)  Lutheran. 

(2)  Presbyterian  (Reformed), 

(3)  Episcopalian  (Anglican). 

(4)  Congregationalist. 

(5)  Methodist. 

II.  The  Argument  from  Concession. 

1.  Force  of  the  argument. 

(1)  As  induction;  additional  evidence. 

(2)  As  testimony;  competent  witnesses. 

(3)  As  refutation ;  a  divided  house. 

2.  Use  of  the  argument. 

(1)  Obligation  to  use  it. 

(2)  Buty  to  use  it  fairly. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   ACT   OF  BAPTISM. 
CONCESSIONS  OF   AFFUSIONISTS. 

The  lii.r^tory  of  baptism  shows  that  gradually 
through  the  centuries  there  came  about  a  chang-e,  so 
that  instead  of  the  New  Testament  and  ancient 
practice  of  immersion  a  majority  of  Christians  now 
practise  sprinkling  or  pouring,  and  call  that  bap- 
tism. The  Baptists  and  a  few  others  strenuously  re- 
ject this  unwarranted  substitution,  insisting  that 
loyalty  to  Christ  and  regard  for  the  meaning  of  the 
ordinance  itself  require  the  practice  of  immersion  as 
the  Scriptural  and  only  proper  act  of  baptism.  The 
defenders  of  immersion  have  been  able  to  show,  both 
from  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  from  the  course 
of  history,  that  this  was  undoubtedly  the  original 
act,  and  yet  in  spile  of  this  demonstration  they  have 
not  yet  succeeded  in  bringing  a  large  majority  of 
their  fellow  Christians  to  an  acceptance^  of  im- 
mersion. So  strong  is  the  power  of  established  cus- 
tom against  clear  reasoning  and  manifest  duty !  Yet 
among  those  who  practise  sprinkling  and  pouring 
for  baptism  there  are  not  a  few  who  concede  all  that 
the  Baptists  claim  as  to  the  original  practice,  while 
others  endeavor  to  show  that  something  other  than 
immersion  either  was  or  may  have  been  the  act  in 
primitive  Christian  times.     In  dealing  with  the  op- 

331 


332  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

ponents  of  immersion  it  will  be  found  promotive 
of  clearness  to  discuss  separately  their  concessions 
and  objections— fairly  setting  these  over  against 
each  other. 

Baptist  authors  have  collected  a  number  of  these 
concessions  from  various  Predobaptist  writers. 
Some  may  be  found  in  Conant's  Meaning  and  Use 
of  Baptizfin,  a  goodly  number  in  Hiscox'  New 
Dircctorij  for  Baptist  Churches,  in  Christian's  Im- 
mersion, as  well  as  in  other  books  of  like  kind.  The 
author  is  indebted  to  these  and  other  sources  of  in- 
formation as  well  as  to  his  own  studies  for  the 
quotations  which  follow.  Examples  will  be  given 
(with  references)  from  anti-immersionists  of  various 
denominations,  and  then  the  value  and  use  of  the 
argument  from  these  concessions  will  be  briefly  con- 
sidered. 

In  making  our  citations  of  concessions  it  is  proper 
to  begin  with  the  Romanists.  The  scholar  and  his- 
torian Doellinger  (First  Age  of  the  Church,  p,  318)  : 
"At  first  Christian  baptism  commonly  took  place 
in  the  Jordan ;  of  course,  as  the  Church  spread  more 
widely,  in  private  houses  also ;  like  that  of  St,  John, 
it  was  by  immersion  of  the  whole  person,  which  is 
the  only  meaning  of  the  New  Testament  word.  A 
mere  pouring  or  sprinkling  was  never  thought  of," 
And  the  same  author  (Kirche  mid  Kirchen,  S,  337)  : 
''The  Baptists  are,  however,  from  the  Protestant 
point  of  view  unassailable,  since  for  their  demand 
of  baptism  by  submersion  they  have  the  clear  text 
of  the  Bible;  and  the  authority  of  the  Church  and 
of  her  testimony  is  not  regarded  by  either  party," 
Cardinal  Gibbons  (Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  p.  275)  : 


CONCESSIONS  OF  AFFUSIONISTS.  333 

"For  several  centuries  after  the  establishment  of 
Christianity,  baptism  was  usually  conferred  by  im- 
mersion; but  since  the  twelfth  century  the  practice 
of  baj)tizing-  by  affusion  has  prevailed  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  as  this  manner  is  attended  with  less  in- 
convenience than  baptism  by  immersion."  See  also 
the  statement  of  Dr.  Brenner  already  quoted  at  p. 
323  of  this  work.  The  Catholics  have  no  motive  for 
trying  to  find  anything  else  than  immersion  in  either 
Scripture  or  history,  since  they  baise  their  present 
practice  on  the  authority  of  the  Church,  as  we  shall 
see  later. 

Among  Protestants  who,  for  various  other  rea- 
sons, practise  and  defend  pouring  and  sprinkling, 
the  original  practice  of  immersion  is  conceded  by 
many  excellent  witnesses  from  among  all  the  prin- 
cipal denominations. 

From  Luther  and  his  followers  a  number  of 
quotations  show  that  the  concession  of  immersion 
as  the  primitive  and  scriptural  baptism  is  general 
and  clear.  Thus  Luther  himself  (as  quoted  by 
Hiscox,  p.  404,  from  his  Worhs,  Vol.  I.,  p.  74, 
Wittenb,  edit.)  :  'The  term  'baptism  is  Greek;  in 
Latin  it  may  be  translated  immersio;  since  we  im- 
merse anything  into  water,  that  the  whole  may  be 
covered  with  the  water."  The  great  historian 
Neander  {Church  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  310)  :  "In  re- 
spect to  the  form  of  baptism,  it  was,  in  conformity 
with  the  original  institution  and  the  original  im- 
port of  the  symbol,  performed  by  immersion,  as  a 
sign  of  entire  baptism  into  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  being 
entirelj'  penetrated  by  the  same."  The  commentator 
Olshausen   {Com.  on  Matt.  18:1-5)  :     "Particularly 


334  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Paul  (Rom.  6:1-4)  treats  of  Baptism  in  the  twofold 
reference  of  tliat  ordinance  to  immersion  and  emer- 
sion, as  symbolizing  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ."  The  great  commentator  Meyer  in  every 
place  concerned  admits  without  hesitation  the  or- 
iginal act  as  immersion.  Specially  interesting  is 
his  comment  on  Mark  7 :4  where  the  word  haptizo 
does  not  refer  to  baptism  as  a  rite,  but  to  bathing. 
Here  ]\[e3'er,  noticing  the  exi)ression,  ''Except  they 
wash  they  eat  not,"  says  that  it  "is  not  to  be  under- 
stood of  Avashing  the  hands,  but  of  immersion,  which 
the  word  in  classic  Greek  and  in  the  New  Testament 
denotes ;  i.  e.,  in  this  case,  according  to  the  context, 
to  take  a  bath."  More  recently  Professor  Harnack 
in  a  letter  to  the  New  York  Independent^  Feb.  19, 
1885,  (quoted  by  Hiscox,  p.  400)  :  ^'Baptizein  un- 
doubtedly signifies  immersion.  No  proof  can  be 
found  that  it  signifies  anything  else  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  in  the  most  ancient  Christian 
literature.  The  suggestion  regarding  a  'sacred 
sense'  is  out  of  the  question." 

Among  the  Presbyterian  (or  Reformed)  scholars, 
while  the  testimony  is  not  so  unanimous  as  among 
the  Lutherans,  it  is  sufficiently  weighty.  Thus 
'Calvin  himself  in  his  commentaries  interprets  bap-- 
tism  as  immersion  (John  3:23;  Acts  8:38),  and  ex- 
pressly says  in  his  Institutes  of  Theology  (Bk.  IV., 
Ch.  XV.,  Sec.  19)  :  "The  word  baptize  signifies 
to  immerse,  and  it  is  certain  that  immersion 
was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  cburch."  His  reason 
for  accepting  the  change  from  immersion  will  be 
noted  later.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  a  leader  among  the 
Westminster    divines    who    framed    the    celebrated 


CONCESSIONS  OF  AFFUSIONISTS.  335 

Confession  of  Faith,  saj^s  in  his  comment  on  Matt. 
3:G,  "That  the  baptism  of  John  was  the  immersion 
of  the  body  in  which  manner  both  the  ablutions  of 
unclean  persons  and  tlie  baptism  of  proselytes  was 
performed,  seems  evident  from  those  things  that 
are  related  of  it ;  namely,  that  he  baptized  in  the 
Jordan,  and  in  Enon  because  there  was  much  water, 
and  that  Christ  being  baptized  went  up  out  of  the 
water."  This  same  Dr.  Lightfoot  records  in  his 
diary  (Works,  Vol.  13,  p.  299;  as  quoted  by  Chris- 
tian, Immersion,  p.  226)  that  in  the  Westminster 
Assembly  there  was  a  large  party  who  wished  im- 
mersion to  be  retained,  along  with  sprinkling  and 
pouring  which  all  accepted,  as  an  authorized  mode 
of  baptism  in  the  Presbyterian  church;  but  by  a 
majority  of  one  after  much  debate  immersion  was 
left  out  and  affusion  authorized  as  ''not  only  law- 
ful, but  also  sufficient  and  most  expedient."  Thus 
it  appears  that  in  the  framing  of  their  great  doctrinal 
standard  the  Presbyterian  leaders  were  divided  in 
sentiment  on  the  act  of  baptism,  and  that  affusion 
was  accepted  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  custom  and 
expediency.  Later  Dr.  Chalmers,  in  his  comment  on 
Romans  6:1-4,  says:  "The  original  meaning  of  the 
word  baptism  is  immersion;  and  though  we  regard 
it  as  a  point  of  indifference  whether  the  ordinance 
so  named  be  performed  in  this  way  or  by  sprinkling, 
yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent  style  of  ad- 
ministration in  the  apostle's  days  was  by  an  actual 
submerging  of  the  body  under  water."  Dr.  Philip 
Schaff  in  many  places  in  his  works  makes  the  same 
concession.  The  following  (quoted  from  him  by 
Hiscox^  p.  406)  is  explicit  enough :    "Immersion  and 


336  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

not  sprinkling  was  unquestionably  the  original  form. 
This  is  shown  by  the  very  meaning  of  the  words 
haptizo,  haptisma  and  haptismos  used  to  designate 
the  rite." 

There  is  practical  unanimity  among  Episcopalian 
•scholars  as  to  the  fact  that  the  original  act  of  bap- 
tism was  immersion,  but  a  few  examples  must  be 
given  to  illustrate  their  vicAvs  and  render  our  own 
statement  complete.  For  a  long  time  the  prayer- 
book  rubrics  directed  that  the  priest  should  dip  the 
child  'Svarily  and  discreetly,"  unless  it  was  "certi- 
fied" by  the  parents  to  be  too  weak  to  stand  im- 
mersion. In  1861  the  Eev.  James  Chrystal,  of  Phila- 
delphia, published  a  book  in  which  he  presented  a 
learned  and  elaborate  argument  to  induce  hi'5 
church  to  return  to  the  ancient  practice  of  trine  im- 
mersion. He  proved  immersion  from  Scripture  and 
history,  and  trine  immersion  from  early  history,  and 
his  book  remains  one  of  the  authoritative  treatises 
on  the  subject.  (See  Chrj'stal,  Modes  of  BaptisDi, 
Philadelphia,  1861).  Here  may  also  be  quoted  some 
notable  names  in  the  Anglican  body.  Dr.  Wall  (His- 
tonj  of  Infant  Baptism,  Vol.  I.,  p.  570)  in  regard  to 
the  primitive  practice  says :  "Their  general  and 
ordinary  way  was  to  baptize  by  immersion,  or  dip- 
ping the  person,  whether  it  was  an  infant  or  grown 
man  or  woman,  into  the  water.  This  is  so  plain 
and  clear  from  an  infinite  number  of  passages  that 
as  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of  such 
Pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative  of  it, 
so  also  we  ought  to  disown  and  show  a  dislike  of  the 
profane  scoffs  which  some  people  give  to  the  English 
anti-Pedobaptists  merely  for  their  use  of  dipping.'^ 


CONCESSIONS  OF  AFFUSIONISTS.  33T 

In  their  well-known  Life  and  Epistles  of  (St.  Paul 
Conybeare  and  Howson,  commenting  on  Rom.  6  :l-4, 
observe:  "This  passage  cannot  be  understood,  un- 
less it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  primitive  baptism 
was  by  immersion."  Dean  Stanley  in  many  pas- 
sages of  his  works  declares  the  truth  about  im- 
mersion; one  such  passage  {History  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  p.  34)  is  in  these  words:  "'The  mode  of 
John's  baptism  has  been  and  still  is  much  discussed, 
but  the  practice  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  the  very 
meaning  of  the  word  leave  no  sufficient  ground  for 
questioning  that  the  original  form  of  baptism  was 
complete  immersion  in  the  deep  baptismal  waters." 
The  great  preacher.  Canon  Liddon,  in  a  sermon  on 
the  likeness  of  Christ's  resurrection  (Rom.  6  :l-4,  and 
quoted  by  Hiscox,  p.  429)  says :  "Of  this  the  Apostle 
traced  the  token  in  the  ceremony,  at  that  time  uni- 
versal, of  baptism  by  immersion." 

Among  the  Congregationalists  also  many  unim- 
peachable witnesses  are  to  be  found.  Thus  Dr. 
Doddridge  {Family  Expositor  on  Rom.  6:4):  "It 
seems  the  part  of  candor  to  confess  that  here  is 
an  allusion  to  the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion^ 
as  most  usual  in  those  early  times."  Moses  Stuart,, 
in  an  Essay  on  Baptism  (quoted  by  Hiscox,  p.  393), 
says:  "Bapti:so  means  to  dip,  plunge  or  immerse 
into  any  liquid.  All  lexicographers  and  critics  of 
any  note  are  agreed  in  this."  The  definition  of  Pro- 
fessor Thayer  in  his  Lexicon  of  the  'New  Testament 
Greek  has  already  been  quoted  at  p.  294  of  this 
work. 

It  remains  to  adduce  some  examples  from  the 
Methodists,  and  it  is  both  natural  and  proper  ta 


338  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

begin  with  John  Wesley  himself.  It  is  well  known 
that  Wesley  never  left  the  Church  of  England,  but 
remained  an  ordained  priest  of  that  communion  all 
his  life.  But  he  was  the  founder  of  the  Methodist 
body.  During  his  unhapp}'  residence  in  Savannah 
as  a  sort  of  chaplain  of  the  English  colony  there,  he 
endeavored  to  carry  out  very  strictly  the  laws  and 
discipline  of  the  English  Church.  As  one  of  the 
rubrics  of  the  prayer-book  required  the  immersion 
of  an  infant  when  it  was  not  too  weak  to  stand  the 
dipping,  Wesley  gave  great  offence  to  the  parents 
of  a  healthy  child  by  refusing  to  baptize  it  in  any 
other  way  than  by  immersion.  This  fact  he  records 
himself  in  his  famous  Journal  (See  Parker's  Heart 
of  Wesley's  Journal,  p.  21),  and  it  is  discussed 
with  candor  by  Tyerman  in  his  Life  of  Wesley.  Be- 
sides this  incident,  which,  though  it  shows  Wesley's 
views  as  to  the  point  in  hand,  might  be  discounted 
as  a  youthful  indiscretion,  there  is  his  comment  on 
Rom.  6:3  (Notes  on  the  New  Testament)  where  he 
plainly  says :  "We  are  buried  with  him,  alluding  to 
the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion." 
Likewise  Adam  Clarke  in  his  Commentary  in  dis- 
cussing Rom.  6:1-4  and  Col.  2:12  holds  similar  lan- 
guage: "It  is  probable  that  the  apostle  alludes  to 
the  mode  of  administering  baptism  by  immersion, 
the  whole  body  being  put  under  water,  etc."  Finally, 
Christian  [Immersion,  p.  239)  quotes  from  Dr.  C. 
W.  Bennett's  Christian  Archaeology  the  following: 
"They  (the  Apostles)  were  familiar  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John's  disciples  and  of  the  Jewish  proselytes. 
This  was  ordinarily  by  dipping  or  immersion.  This 
is  indicated  not  only  by  the  general  signification  of 


CONCESSIONS  OP  AFFUSIONISTS.  339 

the  words  used  in  describing  the  rite;  but  the 
earliest  testimony  of  the  documents  preserved  gives 
preference  to  this  mode."  We  see  that  such  admis- 
sions as  these,  like  some  of  the  others  quoted,  are 
cautious  and  qualified.  But  they  concede  the  main 
point  at  issue  here,  namely,  that  the  original  and 
apostolic  act  of  baptism  was  the  immersion  of  the 
body  in  water.  What  may  be  said  by  Paedobaptists 
in  justification  of  their  practice,  which  is  contrary 
to  these  admissions,  will  presently  be  considered. 
We  are  here  concerned  with  the  admissions  them- 
selves. 

It  is  clear  that  these  concessions  make  up  a  strong 
and  practical  argument  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
defend  Scriptural  baptism  and  insist  that  it  should 
still  be  practised  by  all  Christians.  Merely  as  ad- 
ditions to  the  inductive  proof  of  immersion  these 
admissions  of  Paedobaptist  scholars  are  of  great 
value.  For  by  their  means  it  is  possible  to  exhibit 
the  Scriptural  and  historical  evidence  for  immersion 
without  using  a  single  Baptist  author.  In  fact,  some 
of  the  best  research  work  has  been  done  in  this 
field  by  other  than  Baptist  investigators.  The 
volume  of  evidence  has  been  increased  to  a  most  con- 
vincing extent  by  their  labors.  Further,  as  testi- 
mony these  concessions  have  a  value  and  force  be- 
yond estimate.  For  the  opponents  of  immersion 
themselves  cannot  deny  the  competence  of  the  wit- 
nesses. They  may  charge  Baptist  defenders  of  im- 
mersion with  ignorance  and  prejudice,  but  what  can 
they  say  to  the  testimony  of  eminent  scholars  and 
leaders  in  every  Paedobaptist  denomination,  such  as 
those  who  have  been  quoted  ?    Certainly  they  are  not 


340  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ignorant  men.  Their  scholarship  has  been  recog- 
nized in  every  wav  throughout  the  learned  world. 
Certainly  they  are  not  prejudiced  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion, for  both  their  own  personal  practice  and 
that  of  their  churches  is  sprinkling  or  pouring,  and 
they  would  naturally  be  glad  to  see  that  practice 
confirmed  by  the  evidence,  if  that  were  possible.  Be- 
sides,— and  let  it  not  be  said  to  their  discredit — it 
is  evident  that  in  many  cases  the  testimony  of  these 
men  is  qualified  and  reluctant,  often  accompanied 
with  excuse  for  practising  something  other  than  the 
evidence  submitted  requires.  A  lawyer  defending 
an  important  cause  could  not  be  better  pleased  than 
to  have  a  witness  at  once  competent,  conscientious, — 
and  reluctant  I 

The  practical  value  of  the  argument  from  conces- 
sion lies  especiall.y  in  its  use  for  refutation.  For  it 
not  only  serves  to  repel  any  charge  of  ignorance  or 
prejudice  alleged  against  the  defenders  of  immer- 
sion, but  it  goes  further  and  shows  that  the  op- 
ponents of  that  practice  are  a  house  divided  against 
itself.  A  very  large  number  of  those  who  practise 
sprinkling  for  baptism  do  so  against  their  own  con- 
victions that  immersion  is  the  act  as  described,  if 
not  prescribed,  in  the  Scriptures.  In  their  practice 
they  are  one,  but  in  their  grounds  for  the  practice 
they  are  hopelessly  divided.  Thus  the  essential  weak- 
ness of  the  opposition  to  immersion  is  demonstrated 
by  its  own  defenders,  and  the  Scriptural  act  of  bap- 
tism by  immersion  stands  vindicated  in  the  house  of 
its  enemies. 

As  to  the  use  of  this  argument  by  the  defenders 
of  immersion,  it  is  evident  to  begin  with  that  they 


CONCESSIONS  OF  AFFUSIONISTS.  34:1 

ought  to  use  it.  This  is  demanded  of  them  by  the 
truth  itself.  They  cannot  be  justly  charged  with  un- 
kindness  if  they  protect  the  truth  of  Scripture  with 
weapons  furnished  by  its  assailants!  Loyalty  to 
Christ  and  to  his  will  as  expressed  in  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  demands  the  use  of  this  as  well  as  other 
defenses  of  the  truth.  Moreover,  the  Baptists  owe 
it  to  themselves  as  a  denominational  apologetic  to 
show  that  their  critics  give  them  ample  means  for 
justifying  at  least  one  in  the  cluster  of  their  dis- 
tinctive tenets.  The  charge  of  maintaining  unneces- 
sary sectarian  barriers  to  Christian  unity  comes 
with  ill  grace  from  those  whose  own  language  shows 
that,  in  one  important  particular  at  least,  they  are 
not  living  up  to  the  clear  teachings  of  God's  word. 
It  is  the  opponents  and  not  the  defenders  of  New 
Testament  baptism  who  are  keeping  up  the  barriers. 
But  along  with  the  obligation  to  use  the  argument 
from  concession  comes  that  of  using  it  fairly.  It  is 
unhappily  too  easy  to  press  an  argument  of  this 
kind  in  a  severe  and  uncharitable  spirit,  and  even 
with  unfairness.  It  is  inexcusable  to  gloat  over  a 
candid  opponent  whose  regard  for  truth  leads  him 
to  his  own  disadvantage  to  concede  the  thing  for 
which  we  contend.  We  ought  both  to  recognize  and 
appreciate  the  difficulties  of  his  position,  and  re- 
joice that  he  has  been  led  in  the  face  of  such  diffi- 
culties to  concede  so  much  as  he  has  done.  And  be- 
sides the  spirit  of  charity,  there  should  reign  that 
of  strict  justice.  We  ought  to  comprehend  the  point 
of  view  of  him  who  makes  the  concession.  It  is  not 
our  own.  He  has  reasons,  satisfactory  to  him,  per- 
haps, though  not  so  to  us,  for  maintaining  a  prac- 


342  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tice  out  of  harmony  with  what  he  concedes  to  have; 
been  the  Scriptural  and  primitive  usage.  Whatever 
force  lies  in  these  reasons  should  have  their  due 
weight;  but  most  important  is  it  that  the  qualifica- 
tions with  which  the  concessions  are  made  should 
be  understood  and  fairly  weighed.  And  it  is  the 
very  least  that  fairness  demands  to  quote  accurately 
and  state  intelligently  what  is  conceded,  and  not 
give  a  twist  to  an  author's  language  or  sentiments 
so  as  to  make  him  concede  more  or  other  than  he 
actually  does.  Of  course  there  is  room  here  for  mis- 
take and  misunderstanding,  but  there  should  be 
none  for  unfairness. 


OBJECTIONS   TO    IMMERSION.  343 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  VI. 

ORJECTIONS  TO  IMMERSION. 

I.  Total  Denial  of  Immersion. 

1.  Negative — ^^immersion  not  baptism. 
Criticism  of  Dale's  argument. 

2.  Positive — other  things  are  baptism. 
Not  much  of  this  mode  of  arguing. 

II.  Partial  Denial  of  Immersion. 

1.  That    immersion    is    not    certainly    proved; 

therefore  its  opponents  may  have  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt. 

2.  That  immersion  is  a  mode  of  baptism,  not 

the  only  one. 

III.  Concession  of  Immersion,  with  Attempt  to 

justify  the  change, 

1.  By  church  authority. 

(1)  Romanists  consistently. 

(2)  Protestants  inconsistently. 

2.  By  rationalism. 

(1)  Veiled. 

(2)  Explicit. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  ACT  OF  BAPTISM. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  IINIIMERSION. 


As  we  saw  in  the  last  chapter,  many  Psedobap- 
tist  scholars  of  all  the  leading  denominations  con- 
cede that  immersion  was  the  original  act  of  baptism, 
and  that  the  practice  of  affusion  grew  up  after  the 
early  ages  of  Christian  history.  But  it  is  also  true 
that  many  opponents  of  immersion  do  not  make  any 
such  concessions  in  its  favor,  but  on  the  contrary 
maintain  that  their  own  practice  is  in  accord  with 
the  evidence  both  of  Scripture  and  history;  while 
others,  admitting  that  the  balance  of  evidence  is 
against  them,  yet  seek  to  justify  their  practice  on 
other  grounds.  Along  with  these  more  serious  op- 
ponents we  have  to  reckon  with  some  who  are  not 
really  worthy  of  notice.  There  are  the  flippant, 
whose  stock  in  trade  is  ridicule.  Reverence  for 
sacred  things  or  respect  for  the  conscientious  con- 
victions of  a  great  people  are  no  part  of  their  outfit 
for  discussion.  Then  there  are  the  ignorant,  whose 
•dogmatic  partisanry  makes  them  onl,y  pitiful  in  the 
eyes  of  all  but  those  of  their  own  kind.  Narrowness, 
prejudice,  temper,  unfairness — all  have  marked  both 
the  opponents  and  the  defenders  of  immersion. 
Neither  party  can  claim  entire  immunity  from  those 
unhappy  and  culpable  displays  that  have  too  often 

344 


OBJECTIONS   TO    IMMERSION.  345 

and  too  sadly  marred  this  controversy.  It  is  far 
from  pleasant  to  bring  up  this  phase  of  the  debate, 
even  though  only  to  repudiate  it  with  pain  and  pass 
it  by  with  contempt.  The  subject  is  too  serious  and 
too  important  to  be  abandoned  to  those  on  either 
side  who  drag  it  into  the  mire  of  unseemly  and  un- 
christian strife. 

We  must  therefore  gi\'e  respectful  attention  to 
those  who  seriously  bring  forward  objections  to  im- 
mersion as  the  exclusive  and  obligatory  act  of  Chris- 
tian baptism.  Such  opponents  may  for  convenience 
and  clearness  be  put  into  three  general  classes, 
though  the  distinction  cannot  be  sharply  drawn, 
since  they  sometimes  use  each  other's  arguments. 
The  first  group  is  of  those  who  make  total  and 
strong  denial  of  immersion  as  the  Scriptural  and 
primitive  act  of  baptism,  and  endeavor  to  show  that 
pouring  or  sprinkling  was  the  true  form ;  the  second 
group  is  of  those  who  are  not  quite  so  confident, 
holding  that  immersion  was  not  certainly  the  act, 
but  that  the  others  may  have  been  alternative  forms 
and  probably  therefore  are  of  equal  authority;  the 
third  group  is  of  those  who  admit  that  immersion 
was  the  Scriptural  and  primitive  act,  but  hold  on 
to  sprinkling  and  pouring  for  various  reasons. 

In  view  of  the  evidence  for  immersion  and  the 
concessions  of  many  who  do  not  practise  it,  it  may 
well  seem  surprising  that  any  should  be  found 
seriously  to  maintain  that  baptize  does  not  mean 
immerse,  but  sprinkle  or  pour,  and  that  early  Chris- 
tian history  sustains  this  view.  Yet  not  a  few 
Psedobaptist  writers  have  displayed  considerable  in- 
dustry and  ability  in  defending  this  opinion.     One 


346  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

of  the  most  notable  attempts,  which  may  be  taken 
as  a  sample,  is  that  of  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Dale,  a  Presby- 
terian minister  of  Pennsylvania,  who  about  the 
year  1870  published  four  stout  volumes  entitled 
respectively,  ''Classic,"  "Judaic,"  ''Johannic,"  and 
"Christie  Baptism."  This  elaborate  work  was  in- 
tended to  refute  the  little  treatise  of  Conant  on 
"The  Meaning  and  Use  of  Baptizein,"  which  was 
outlined  in  a  former  chapter.  It  subjected  all  the 
references  to  baptism  that  had  been  found  to  an 
exhaustive  and  painstaking  review  in  order  to  show 
that  haptiso  does  not  mean  immerse.  The  work  was 
hailed  at  first  as  a  triumphant  refutation  of  the  Bap- 
tist contention,  but  sound  thinking  and  able  re- 
views soon  discredited  the  larger  part  and  main 
point  of  Dr.  Dale's  argument,  though  some  of  his 
work  on  minor  points  is  still  used  by  opponents  of 
immersion  in  their  efforts  to  cast  doubt  on  the  actual 
meaning  of  haptizo.  These  attempts  to  break  the 
force  of  that  meaning  in  particular  instances  can- 
not in  a  brief  review  be  noticed  in  detail,  but  a 
general  consideration  will  be  given  to  them  at  a 
later  stage  of  the  discussion.  It  is  proper  here  to 
consider  briefly'  Dr.  Dale's  main  argument  and  con- 
clusion. 

The  argument  consists  of  three  propositions,  de- 
rived from  the  author's  study  of  his  data,  and  runs 
thus:  I.  "Bapto  expresses  a  definite  act,  char- 
acterized by  limitations — to  dip."  Under  this  it  is 
maintained:  1.  That  hapto  in  secondary  meanings 
means  to  dye,  and  from  this  comes  the  derivative 
haptizo,  and  not  from  the  primary  sense.  2.  That 
therefore  hapto  expresses  action,  haptizo  only  con- 


OBJECTIONS    TO    IMMERSION,  347 

dition.  II,  "Baptizo  in  its  primary  use  expresses 
condition  characterized  by  complete  intiisposition, 
without  expressing,  and  with  absolute  indifference 
to,  the  form  of  the  act  by  which  such  intusposition 
is  effected  as  also  without  other  limitations — to 
merse."  III.  "Baptiso  in  secondary  use  expresses 
condition,  the  result  of  complete  influence,  effected 
by  any  possible  means  and  in  any  conceivable  way." 
Hence  the  conclusion  that  baptism  is  "a  thoroughly- 
changed  spiritual  condition  of  the  soul,  effected  by 

the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost Ritually 

symbolized  as  to  its  soul-purification  by  pure  water, 
poured  or  sprinkled,  or  otherwise  suitably  applied  to 

the  person Dipping  the  body  into  the 

water  is  not,  nor  can  it  be.  Christian  baptism." 

The  force  of  this  remarkable  argument — so  far  as 
it  may  be  allowed  any  force  at  all — lies  in  the  first 
and  second  propositions.  The  vague  generalization 
expressed  in  the  third  proposition  conveys  no  de- 
finite meaning,  and  may  be  left  out  of  account. 
Whatever  it  may  mean  is  really  given  in  the  second 
proposition.  The  confusion  of  thought  manifested 
in  the  concluding  statements  is  painful.  The  spiri- 
tual intent  of  baptism  is  confounded  with  the  act, 
symbol  with  substance;  the  symbolism  of  the  element 
is  emphasized  to  discredit  that  of  the  action;  and 
the  readily  admitted  fact  that  a  mere  dipping  is 
not  all  of  baptism  is  so  stated  as  to  imply  that  dip- 
ping cannot  be  the  act  at  all  I  Moreover,  it  requires 
a  strangely  perverted  logical  vision  to  see  that  the 
conclusion  has  any  near  relation  to  the  premises. 
Our  examination  of  the  argument,  then,  recurs  to 
the  two  propositions  iipon  which  it  chiefl}-  depends. 


348  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

Dr.  Dale,  in  his  first  proposition,  tries  to  es- 
tablish a  distinction  between  the  uses  of  the  root 
verb  bapto,  which  he  admits  means  to  dip,  and  its 
derivative  haptizo  to  which  he  denies  that  significa- 
tion. The  process  is  far  more  ingenious  than  sound. 
The  first  point  he  assumes  is  that  daptizo  comes 
from  the  secondary  meaning  of  hapto  (to  dye),  and 
not  from  the  first  (to  dip).  There  is  no  sufficient 
evidence  for  this  assumption.  The  second  fallacy 
is  even  more  glaring,  namely,  that  while  hapto  de- 
scribes an  action,  'baptizo  describes  a  condition. 
Here  he  arbitrarily  assigns  a  passive  signification 
to  an  active  verb!  For  as  a  matter  of  fact  hapto 
and  haptizo  both — as  any  other  active  transitive 
verbs — express  action  in  the  active  voice  and  con- 
dition in  the  passive.  It  is  unheard-of  syntax  to 
force  a  passive  sense  on  an  active  verb,  simply  be- 
cause it  happens  to  be  a  derivative  from  another 
verb!  In  both  Greek  and  Latin  there  are  many  such 
verbs,  and  to  apply  Dr.  Dale's  procedure  to  them 
generally  would  be  revolutionary  indeed.  For  though 
it  may  be  true  that  haptizo  (like  other  such  deriva- 
tives, may  mean  to  put  into  the  condition  of  being 
dipped,  that  condition  cannot  be  reached  otherwise 
than  bj^  dipping,  for  then  it  would  be  some  other 
condition!  So  both  the  active  form  of  the  verb  and 
the  real  meaning  involved  refute  the  assumption  of 
Dr.  Dale  that  haptizo  expresses  condition  only,  and 
not  action.  From  this  it  follows  that  Dr.  Dale's 
second  proposition  is  equally  untenable,  for  that 
depends  upon  the  first.  Here  the  only  important 
thing  is  that  he  coins  a  new  word  to  describe  the 
"condition"  expressed  by  haptizo,  namely,  "intuspo- 


OBJECTIONS    TO    niMERSION.  349 

sition"  effected  "with  absolute  indifference  to  the 
form  of  the  act!"  In  other  words  baptism  is  the 
condition  of  being  dipped  without  any  dipping  hav- 
ing been  done  in  order  to  reach  that  state  of  intus- 
position!  There  is  "absolute  indifference  to  the 
form  of  the  act"  whereby  the  ''condition"  expressed 
by  haptho  is  attained ;  and  this  "condition,"  we  are 
at  last  told,  is  "the  result  of  complete  influence, 
effected  by  any  possible  means,  and  in  any  con- 
ceivable way."  This  clumsy  and  circuitous  attempt 
to  get  rid  of  any  plain  meaning  or  active  sense  in  a 
perfectly  clear  and  frequently  used  Greek  verb  only 
shows  to  what  strange  shifts  well-meaning  and 
learned  men  may  be  reduced  when  they  have  a  thesis 
to  maintain  at  all  hazards. 

Little  attempt  is  made  by  anti-immersionists  to 
demonstrate  that  haptizo  means  pour  or  sprinkle. 
They  spend  their  main  strength  on  the  negative — 
the  effort  to  prove  that  it  does  not  mean  immerse. 
But  still  here  and  there  one  tries  to  show  the  posi- 
tive side  also.  This  is,  however,  usually  left  to  in- 
ference. For  the  attempt  to  make  out  two  meanings 
— both  pour  and  sprinkle,— in  place  of  the  one  that 
has  to  be  abandoned,  involves  yet  further  trouble. 
For  the  Greek,  as  well  as  other  languages,  has  three 
distinct  words  for  the  three  distinct  acts  of  dipping, 
pouring  and  sprinkling,  and  was  not  compelled  to 
use  any  one  when  either  of  the  others  was  meant. 
So  then,  if  immersion  be  disposed  of  one  is  not 
compelled  to  substitute  any  definite  term,  but  con- 
tents himself  with  saying  that  any  application  of 
water  to  the  person  will  do.  Yet  all  that  can  be  done 
by  showing  the  difficulties  of  dipping  in  some  cases 


350  ORDI^fANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

where  haptizo  occurs  is  done;  and  the  greater  con- 
venience of  pouring  or  sprinkling,  as  the  case  may 
be,  is  shown.  But  this  line  of  reasoning  is  the 
especial  favorite  of  the  second  group  of  anti-immer- 
sionists,  whom  we  now  must  consider. 

These  do  not  risk  a  total,  but  only  insist  on  a 
partial  denial  of  immersion,  attempting  to  prove 
that  it  was  not  necessary  and  exclusively  the  act  of 
baptism  in  New  Testament  and  early  times,  but  that 
other  actions  may  also  have  been  employed.  There 
are  two  parts  to  this  argument.  One  is  that  im- 
mersion has  not  certainly  been  proved  ta  be  the  ex- 
clusive act.  Here  the  opponents  give  themselves  the 
benefit  of  every  doubt  which  they  claim  has  been 
brought  on  immersion  by  themselves  or  others.  They 
insist  that  in  some  of  the  cases,  as  Dr.  Dale  has 
shown,  the  circumstances  would  have  made  im- 
mersion very  difficult  or  even  impossible.  Two 
favorite  instances  from  the  New  Testament  itself 
will  suffice  as  illustrations  of  this  mode  of  arguing 
the  case  against  immersion.  One  is  the  passage  in 
Mark  7:4,  ''And  when  they  come  from  the  market- 
place, except  they  bathe  themselves,  they  eat  not; 
and  many  other  things  there  are  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  washings  of  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brasen  vessels."  This  is  quoted  from  the  American 
Revision,  which  omits  from  the  text  after  "pots," 
the  words  "and  couches,"  which  occur  in  many 
ancient  manuscripts.  Here  there  is  no  reference  to 
baptism  as  the  Christian  rite,  but  to  the  ceremonial 
washings  of  the  Jews,  in  describing  which  the  word 
for  baptism  is  twice  used,  namely,  in  "bathe  them- 
selves," and  "washings."    Taking  no  account  of  the 


OBJECTIONS   TO    IMMERSION.  351 

omission  of  ^'couches"  in  some  authorities  and 
translating  literally,  the  expression  would  be :  '^Ex- 
cept they  immerse  themselves,"  and,  "immersions 
of  cups  and  pots  and  brasen  vessels  and  couches," 
Here  we  are  told  that  it  was  highly  improbable  that 
the  Jewish  traditionalists  would  go  to  the  trouble 
of  taking  an  entire  bath  every  time  they  came  in  from 
the  street,  and  that  though  a  cup  or  pot  might 
easily  be  dipped  in  a  wash  pan  for  cleansing,  how 
could  a  ''couch"  be  so  managed?  In  regard  to  the 
first  it  must  be  said  that  the  custom  of  thorough 
bathing  was  customary;  ample  facilities  were  pro- 
vided for  it,  and  Jewish  purists  and  precisians  were 
very  strict  as  to  their  ablutions.  Considering  the 
habits  of  the  people  described,  there  is  no  im- 
probability, but  rather  the  contrary,  that  the  wash- 
ing mentioned  was  a  complete  bath  or  immersion  of 
the  person.  As  to  the  couches  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  the  expression  does  not  here  mean  the 
^'bed"  or  pallet,  but  the  frame  on  which  cushions  or 
mats  could  be  placed,  or  removed  at  pleasure.  These 
were  light  and  portable,  and  probably  easily  taken 
to  pieces  for  thorough  cleaning.  There  is  no  im- 
possibility of  dipping  here,  even  though  it  does  not 
seem  at  first  sight,  to  our  ways  of  thinking,  to  have 
been  easily  done.  The  other  passage  used  to  throw 
doubt  on  immersion  seems  to  have  been  first  so 
used  by  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  has  been  a  prime 
favorite  with  affusionists  since  his  time.  It  is  the 
statement  in  regard  to  the  baptism  of  the  three 
thousand  who  were  converted  at  Pentecost  (Acts 
2:41).  Here  it  is  alleged  to  be  highly  improbable 
that  as  manv  as  three  thousand  could  have  been  im- 


352  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

mersed  in  Jerusalem  in  one  day.  But  this  objec- 
tion is  easily  met.  It  is  matter  of  certain  knowledge 
that  the  water  supply  of  Jerusalem  was  excep- 
tionally great.  There  was  no  lack  of  sufficiency  on 
this  score.  And  there  were  a  plenty  of  administra- 
tors to  perform  the  baptism.  In  the  year  1878  in 
the  Telugu  mission  in  India  six  men,  working  two 
at  a  time,  in  six  hours  immersed  two  thousand  two 
hundred  and  twenty-two  persons.  It  was  clearly 
not  impossible  to  baptize  the  three  thousand  at 
Pentecost.  Other  instances  of  like  sort,  both  from 
classic  and  ecclesiastical  sources,  have  been  pressed 
by  anti-immersionists  to  make  immersion  doubtful 
or  improbable  as  the  meaning  of  haptizo :  and  then 
the  large  inference  is  drawn  that- it  is  doubtful  g-en- 
erally ;  and  so  other  things  may  have  been  baptism ; 
and  then  pouring  and  sprinkling  were  more  con- 
venient; and  therefore,  finally,  they  are  just  as  much 
baptism  as  immersion,  and  probably  more  so ! 

The  other  part  of  this  line  of  pleading  has  really 
been  anticipated  in  what  has  just  been  said,  but 
for  completeness  it  must  be  explicitly  given.  That 
is,  that  while  immersion  may  have  been  sometimes 
employed,  it  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  the  only 
form  of  baptism  in  New  Testament  and  early  Chris- 
tian times.  Even  if  some  of  the  passages  teach  im- 
mersion, others  make  it  doubtful,  and  therefore  im- 
mersion was  only  one  of  the  ways  employed.  Hence 
it  is  a  matter  of  choice;  and  any  one  maj'  use  his 
own  i)leasure  whether  he  shall  be  immersed  or 
sprinkled.  The  same  passages  used  to  put  doubt 
upon  immersion  altogether  are  urged  under  this 
head  to  show  that  something  else  may  have  been 


OBJECTIONS   TO    IMMERSION.      •  353 

or  probably  was  sometimes  the  act  of  baptism. 

From  this  group  we  naturally  pass  to  those  who 
concede  that  immersion  was  the  original  baptism, 
but  endeavor  in  various  ways  to  justify  the  substitu- 
tion of  sprinkling  and  pouring  for  the  Scriptural 
act.  There  are  two  principal  grounds  on  which  this 
attempt  is  made:  that  of  church  authority,  and  that 
of  expediency.  The  Romanists  explicitly  avow  the 
first,  and  they  act  consistently  with  their  view  of 
the  church  in  so  doing.  As  to  baptism,  Christian 
{Immersion,  p.  210f.)  quotes  Archbishop  Kenrick 
in  these  terms:  ''The  change  of  discipline  which 
has  taken  place  in  regard  to  baptism  should  not  sur- 
prise us,  for  although  the  Church  is  but  the  dis- 
penser of  the  sacraments  which  her  divine  Spouse 
instituted,  she  rightfully  exercises  a  discretionary 
power  as  to  the  manner  of  their  administra- 
tion  Immersion   was  well   suited  to   the 

Eastern  nations,  whose  habits  and  climate  prepared 
them  for  it,  and  was  therefore  practised  in  the  com- 
mencement, whenever  necessity  did  not  prevent  it. 
Cases,  which  at  first  w^ere  exceptional,  gradually 
multiplied,  so  that  at  length  the  ordinary  mode  of 
baptism  was  by  affusion.  The  Church  wisely  sanc- 
tioned that  which,  although  less  solemn,  is  equally 
effectual."  Protestants  do  not  admit  the  authority 
of  the  church  as  against  Scripture,  and  it  is  not  a 
little  surprising  to  find  some  of  them  inconsistently 
taking  this  Romanist  ground  in  regard  to  baptism. 
Chief  among  these — of  all  men! — we  find  Calvin, 
who  uses  this  language  (  quoted  by  Christian,  p. 
224f )  :  "Wherefore  the  Church  did  grant  liberty  to 
herself,   since   the   beginning,    to   change   the   rites 


354  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

somewhat,  excepting  the  substance.  It  is  of  no  con- 
sequence at  all  whether  the  person  that  is  baptized 
is  totally  immersed,  or  whether  he  is  merely  sprin- 
kled by  an  affusion  of  water.  This  should  be  a  mat- 
ter of  choice  to  the  churches  of  different  regions." 
The  debate  in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  when  im- 
mersion was  by  one  vote  defeated  as  an  alternative 
form  of  baptism,  shows  that  the  (Presbyterian) 
"Church"  was  thus  exercising  her  "liberty"  to  change 
the  law  of  her  Lord ! 

But  this  is  really  only  a  mode  of  purely  ration- 
alistic reasoning;  and  this,  more  or  less  veiled,  is 
not  uncommon  among  the  Protestant  opponents  of 
immersion.  As,  for  example,  those  who  say  that  the 
quantity  of  water  is  a  matter  of  indifference;  the 
essential  thing  is  water,  and  however  this  may  be 
applied,  it  signifies  the  thing  intended  in  Scripture; 
and  if  this  is  done  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  ac- 
cording to  the  formula  prescribed,  it  is  satisfactory. 
This  is  a  very  common  objection.  It  is  often  popu- 
larly stated  in  some  such  phases  as  ''a  drop  is  as 
good  as  an  ocean."  But  when  we  come  to  the  real 
heart  of  the  matter  we  have  to  say  that  the  act  as 
well  as  the  element  is  symbolical ;  for  Paul,  in  Rom. 
6  :l-4,  distinctly  declares  that  baptism  is  S3miboli- 
cally  a  burial  and  resurrection,  and  many  Psedo- 
baptists  admit  that  the  symbolism  of  the  ordinance 
has  been  destroyed  by  departing  from  the  scriptural 
practice.  Besides  that,  there  lurks  here  an  illusive 
and  rationalistic  fallacy.  They  say,  regardless  of 
the  plain  teachings  of  the  Scripture,  We  interpret 
it  to  mean  certain  things,  and  act  accordingly.  The 
Bible  says  immerse,  but  we  think  that  immersion  is 


OBJECTIONS   TO   IMMERSION.  355 

not  necessary,  since  water  is  the  main  thing. 

Still  others  take  the  view  that  after  all  baptism  is 
only  a  ceremony,  not  essential  to  salvation,  and  that 
to  insist  upon  the  letter  of  the  law  is  not  necessary. 
Baptism  is  a  form,  not  substance.  There  are  many 
who  urge  this  kind  of  argument;  but  a  little  con- 
sideration shows  how  futile  it  is.  The  same  method 
of  reasoning  applied  to  the  Lord's  Supper  would 
destroy  utterly  the  symbolism  of  that  sacred  ordi- 
nance. If  bread  and  wine  are  not  essential,  then 
water,  coffee  or  some  other  liquid  might  be  sub- 
stituted for  wine,  and  some  vegetable  or  other  sub- 
stance for  bread,  in  the  celebration  of  the  Supper. 
It  is  amazing  that  in  the  face  of  the  plain  command 
any  should  desire,  on  the  plea  that  strict  obedience 
may  not  be  essential  to  salvation,  to  depart  from 
the  clear  teachings  of  our  Lord.  Have  we  a  right  to 
change  the  Lord's  ordinances  because  he  has  not 
seen  fit  to  hang  our  salvation  upon  them?  Shall 
our  obedience  to  the  commands  of  our  Saviour  be 
put  upon  the  ground  of  our  securing  salvation ;  or 
of  gratitude  to  him  for  his  work  in  our  behalf?  If 
it  be  the  will  of  the  Master  that  in  becoming  mem- 
bers of  his  churches  on  earth  we  should  set  forth 
that  fact  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  by  immersion 
of  the  body  in  water,  is  it  right  that  we  should  say 
something  else  will  do? 

Finally,  there  is  another  class  of  objectors  who 
push  still  further  this  kind  of  reasoning.  They  are 
well  exemplified  in  the  late  Dean  Stanley  from  whose 
discussion  of  baptism  in  his  Christian  Institutions 
the  following  sentences  are  quoted:  ''Speaking  gen- 
erallv,    the   Christian   civilized   world   has   decided 


356  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

against  it  [that  is,  immersion].  It  is  a  striking  ex- 
ample of  the  triumph  of  common  sense  and  con- 
venience over  the  bondage  of  form  and  custom.  Per- 
haps no  greater  change  has  ever  taken  place  in  the 
outward  form  of  Christian  ceremony  with  such  gen- 
eral agreement.  It  is  a  larger  change  even  than 
that  which  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  made 
in  administering  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per in  the  bread  without  the  wine.  For  whilst  that 
was  a  change  which  did  not  affect  the  thing  that 
was  signified,  the  change  from  immersion  to  sprink- 
ling has  set  aside  the  most  of  the  apostolic  expres- 
sions regarding  baptism,  and  has  altered  the  very 
meaning  of  the  word.  But  whereas  the  withholding 
of  the  cup  produced  the  long  and  sanguinary  war  of 
Bohemia,  and  has  been  one  of  the  standing 
grievances  of  the  Protestants  against  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  the  withdrawal  of  the  ancient  rite 
of  immersion,  decided  by  the  usage  of  the  whole 
ancient  church  to  be  essential  to  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  has  been,  with  the  exception  of  the  insur- 
rection of  the  Anabaptists  of  Muenster,*  conceded 
almost  without  a  struggle.  The  whole  transaction 
shows  the  wisdom  of  refraining  from  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  customs  of  other  regions  and  other 
climates  on  unwilling  recipients.  It  shows  how 
the  spirit  which  lives  and  moves  in  human  society 
can  override  even  the  most  sacred  ordinances.  It 
remains  an  instructive  example  of  the  facility'  and 
silence  with  which,  in  matters  of  form,  even  the 
widest  changes  can  be  effected  without  any  serious 

*  This  was  not  the  cause  of  the  Miiaster  troubles.     The 
learned  Dean  was  unhappily  here  inaccurate. 


OBJECTIONS   TO    IMMERSION.  357 

loss  to  Christian  truth,  and  with  great  advantage 
to  Christian  solemnity  and  edification.  The  sub- 
stitution of  sprinkling  for  immersion  must  to  many 
at  the  time,  as  to  the  Baptists  now,  have  seemed  the 
greatest  and  most  dangerous  innovation.  Now,  by 
most  Catholics  and  most  Protestants,  it  is  regarded 
almost  as  a  second  nature." 

This  statement  has  been  quoted  at  length  and 
without  omissions,  in  order  that  the  position  as- 
sumed may  be  squarely  and  fairly  considered.  Here 
is  a  learned  and  candid  man,  Avho  distinctly  and 
without  reserve  admits  that  immersion  was  the  New 
Testament  baptism  and  the  practice  of  Christian 
people  for  centuries,  and  yet  he  justifies  the  change 
which  has  taken  place  from  the  plain  command  of 
the  Bible.  On  what  ground?  On  the  ground  of  con- 
venience. It  is  more  convenient  in  cold  countries 
to  practise  sprinkling  and  pouring  than  it  is  to 
practise  immersion,  therefore,  wherever  it  is  more 
convenient  to  do  something  other  than  what  the 
Lord  prescribed,  according  to  the  logic  of  the  emi- 
nent Dean,  we  are  at  liberty  to  do  it.  But  this 
amazing  line  of  reasoning  does  not  stop  here.  It  is 
justified  further  on  the  ground  of  common  sense;  in 
other  words,  our  common  sense  is  a  higher  authority 
in  deciding  matters  of  religious  service  than  the 
teaching  of  God  as  revealed  in  his  Word.  This  is 
the  barest  kind  of  rationalism.  What  becomes  of 
the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures  if  such  reason- 
ing as  this  is  to  be  applied  to  their  clear  and  ad- 
mitted deliverances  on  an  important  point  of  Chris- 
tion  practice?  When  we  are  ready  to  deny  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  we  may  accept  the  Dean's 


358  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

conclusions,  but  not  until  then.  And  still  further 
the  Dean  says  that  this  is  an  illustration  of  ^'how 
the  spirit  that  lives  and  moves  in  human  society 
can  override  even  the  most  sacred  ordinances."  In 
other  words,  the  spirit  of  progress  manifest  in 
human  society  is  the  highest  law.  Here  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  is  applied  to  Christian  institutions  with 
startling  boldness,  and  the  whole  basis  of  Christian 
conduct  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  spirit  of  progress 
in  civilization.  If  this  kind  of  reasoning  be  ad- 
mitted in  the  case  of  an  ordinance  it  may  be  in  other 
things  of  which  the  Scriptures  teach,  and  we  thereby 
elevate  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as  the  law  of  all 
Christian  practice  instead  of  the  Word  of  God. 

Upon  a  fair  and  candid  review  of  the  whole  series 
of  objections,  which  have  been  here  only  slightly 
sketched,  it  does  not  seem  that  any  of  them  ought 
to  be  sufficient  to  set  aside  the  plain  teachings  of 
the  Word  of  God,  as  brought  out  by  the  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize,  the  historic  practice  of  many 
Christians  and  the  admissions  of  many  learned 
Paedobaptist  writers,  to  the  effect  that  the  only 
proper  baptism  is  the  immersion  of  the  body  of  the 
believer  in  water  into  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
— the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  seems 
in  fact  that  this  whole  set  of  objections,  first  and 
last,  was  made  to  order.  The  change  in  the  practice 
of  the  Christian  world  gave  rise  to  the  arguments 
to  justify  it, — the  arguments  did  not  give  rise  to  the 
change. 


IN  SCRIPTURE  AND  HISTORY.  359 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM  ;  SCRIPTURE  AND  HISTORY. 

I.  The  Scripture  Data. 

1.  The  Gospels. 

(1)  John  the  Baptist. 

(2)  Our  Lord. 

(3)  The  Disciples. 

2.  The  Acts. 

(1)  Some  references  to  John's  baptism. 

(2)  Cases  of  Christian  baptism. 

3.  The  Epistles. 

4.  The  inferences. 

(1)  The  agent  a  baptized  believer. 

(2)  Acting  under  some  authority. 

II.  The  Historical  Developments. 

1.  The  Patristic  Age. 

(1)  Early  stages  of  the  question. 

(2)  Cyprian  against  Stephen. 

(3)  Augustine  against  the  Donatists. 

2.  The  Middle  Ages. 

(1)  The  Romanists. 

(2)  The  sects. 

3.  The  Reformation  Epoch. 

(1)  The  Catholics. 

(2)  The  Reformers. 

(a)  Lutheran. 

(b)  Calvinistic. 

(c)  Anabaptist  and  Baptist. 

4.  The  Modern  Period. 

(1)  Romanists. 

(2)  Protestant  Pa^dobaptists. 

(3)  Baptists. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM. 


IN   SCRIPTURE   AND   HISTORY. 


Having  considered  the  obligation  of  performing 
and  receiving^  baptism  as  an  ordinance  of  Christ, 
and  having  studied  the  nature  of  the  act  required, 
we  now  proceed  to  discuss  the  agent,  or  ''adminis- 
trator," of  this  solemn  rite.  Upon  whom  devolves 
the  duty  of  immersing,  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  those  who  come  as  candidates  for  this 
Christian  ceremony?  Are  any  qualifications  re- 
quired in  the  performer  of  the  act  of  baptism,  or 
may  anybody  perform  it  at  will?  If  qualifications 
are  required,  what  are  they  and  by  whom  de- 
termined? Does  the  lack  of  requisite  qualification 
impair  the  validity  of  the  act?  If  so,  to  what  ex- 
tent? These  questions  make  clear  the  main  points 
of  discussion  concerning  the  agent  in  baptism,  and 
they  also  show  that  the  subject  is  one  of  both  in- 
terest and  difficulty.  The  interest  arises  in  part 
from  the  fact  that  the  subject  has  occasioned  one  of 
the  historic  controversies  on  baptism,  and  remains 
one  of  no  little  practical  importance  to  the  Baptist 
churches  of  to-day.  Space  forbids  a  complete  study 
of  the  subject  in  all  its  details,  but  it  is  not  im- 
possible to  present  the  main  issues  involved;  and 
this  we  shall  do  by  looking  at  the  subject  from  the 

360 


THE  AGENT  IN   BAPTISM.  361 

points  of  view  of  Scripture,  history,  and  the  Bap- 
tist problem  of  the  present.  In  this  chapter  we 
study  tlie  scriptural  and  historical  aspects  of  the 
subject. 

As  always,  so  here  our  prime  effort,  and  in  some 
sort  our  chief  difficulty,  is  to  derive  what  light  we 
can  from  the  Scriptures.  But  in  the  nature  of 
things  not  much  light  can  be  expected  on  the  de-r 
tails  of  modern  ecclesiastical  questions  from  the 
data  given  in  the  New  Testament.  The  most  we 
can  hope  to  do  is  to  show  what  general  principles 
are  there  laid  down  or  certainly  implied,  and  draw 
such  warrantable  inferences  as  we  may  from  the 
facts  discovered. 

In  the  Gospels  there  are  some  references  to  John 
the  Baptist,  to  our  Lord  himself,  and  to  the  dis- 
ciples, as  performing  baptism,  or  enjoining  its  per- 
formance. From  these  we  must  infer  what  we  may 
as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  agent.  John's  bap- 
tism, of  course,  has  only  illustrative  value  for  our 
present  purpose  as  it  was  only  introductory  to 
properly  Christian  baptism.  But  so  far  as  his  bap- 
tism bears  on  our  present  subject  at  all  it  shows 
that  he  personally  performed  the  rite,  and  that  he 
claimed  direct  divine  authority  for  so  doing.  The 
first  inference  appears  both  from  his  being  called 
"the  baptizer,"  and  from  the  descriptions  of  his 
work.  The  second  is  distinctly  stated  by  himself  in 
John  1 :30-33,  where  he  refers  to  *'him  who  sent  me 
to  baptize  with  water."  This  claim  is  fortified  by 
the  implied  endorsement  of  our  Lord  in  Matt. 
21 :24:ff,  and  by  his  having  accepted  baptism  at 
John's  hands.     As  the  beginner  of  the  rite  John 


362  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

most  probably  was  not  himself  a  baptized  person. 
But  he  was  distinctly  an  authorized  agent  in  per- 
forming his  rite  upon  others. 

In  regard  to  our  Lord  himself  there  are  two  state- 
ments that  bear  on  the  discussion,  that  in  John  3 :22, 
and  that  in  John  4:1-2,  where  it  is  said  ''that  he 
made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John, 
though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples." 
Here  it  is  distinctly  declared  that  Jesus  did  not  per- 
sonally perform  the  act,  but  along  with  that  it  is 
equally  certain  that  his  disciples  did  so  by  his  com- 
mand and  as  his  authorized  agents.  It  is  implied 
that  they  themselves  were  baptized,  either  by  John 
as  the  beginner,  or  by  some  disciple  of  Jesus. 
Whether  this  work  of  baptizing  went  on  throughout 
Christ's  ministry  is  not  said;  nor  whether  any  other 
authorization  of  his  disciples  was  given.  All  that 
can  be  said  from  this  one  instance  is  that  the  bap- 
tizing of  Christ's  disciples  as  agents  was  distinctly' 
by  his  authority,  and  not  on  their  own  initiative. 

Neither  in  the  instructions  to  the  Twelve  (Matt. 
10),  nor  in  those  to  the  Seventy  (Luke  10:1-18)  is 
there  a  word  about  baptizing.  Yet  it  is  not  to  be 
certainly  inferred  from  this  silence  that  it  was  not 
a  part  of  their  mission.  For  this  may  be  perhaps 
inferred  from  the  passage  in  John  just  adduced,  and 
from  the  Commission  in  Matt.  28:19.  Here  indeed 
we  have  the  enduring  authority  for  baptism  as  an 
ordinance  for  all  time.  But  it  is  remarkable  that 
the  agent  is  not  specially  mentioned,  nor  is  there 
any  definite  implication  of  ecclesiastical  or  even 
apostolic  authority.  "Go  ye,"  says  our  Lord.  And 
who  are  meant  by  "ye"?    Evidently  it  was  not  ex- 


THE   AGEXT  IX   BAPTISM.  363 

clusively  the  Apostles,  nor  can  we  make  sure  it  was 
the  collective  group  regarded  as  a  church.  There  is 
no  mention  or  even  hint  of  an  organization  here. 
Whatever  we  may  think  on  that  point  must  be  an 
inference  from  other  things  along  with  the  Com- 
mission, and  not  from  the  brief  language  if  the  Com- 
mission itself.  Yet  two  things  do  stand  out  in  that 
great  charge  with  strong  distinctness:  (1)  That 
those  charged  with  the  making  and  baptizing  of  dis- 
ciples were  themselves  disciples,  and  therefore  bap- 
tized ;*and  (2)  that  they  were  to  act  as  under  the 
authority  of  Christ.  Unauthorized  and  unbaptized 
agents  of  baptism  cannot  be  fairly  inferred  from  the 
Commission  any  more  than  distinct  church  authority 
or  ordained  ministers. 

The  baptisms  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Acts  do 
not  give  much  information  as  to  the  agent.  A  few 
passages  refer  to  John's  baptism  (Acts  1:5;  11:16; 
19:1-7),  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  his  own 
agency  in  the  act,  unless  the  last  one  be  an  exception. 
Here — the  case  of  the  twelve  men  at  Ephesus — some 
interpreters  think  the  implication  is  that  "John's 
baptism"  must  refer  to  the  act  of  some  who  claimed 
to  be  his  disciples  or  representatives,  rather  than 
to  his  own.  But  the  inference  either  way  cannot  be 
clear.  More  interesting  for  the  present  discussion 
is  the  fact  that  these  twelve  men  did  not  present 
a  satisfactory  baptism  to  the  brethren,  and  they 
were  thereupon  "baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  had  to 
their  credit  an  immersion  which  they  called  "John's 
baptism,"  and  with  which  they  were  apparently 
themselves  well   enough  satisfied.     This  procedure 


364  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

was  at  the  instance  and  by  the  authority  of  Paul, 
though  it  is  not  said  that  he  performed  the  act ;  but 
it  is  rather  intimated  that  he  did  not.  The  invali- 
dating defect  in  the  immersion  which  these  men 
had  previously  received  was  not  that  of  an  un- 
authorized administrator — that  not  being  in  ques- 
tion— but  clearly  that  of  ignorance  on  their  part  of 
fundamental  truth  which  they  should  have  known 
as  necessary  to  an  intelligent  reception  of  baptism. 
The  only  point  here  is  that  the  action  of  Paul  in 
this  case  gives  warrant  for  the  rejection  of  an  im- 
mersion not  found  satisfactory,  and  the  performance 
of  a  true  one  in  such  case. 

Besides  this  remedying  of  a  defective  baptism 
there  are  cases  of  regular  Christian  baptism  men- 
tioned in  the  book  of  Acts  which  give  a  little  light 
on  the  question  of  the  agent.  In  case  of  the  three 
thousand  at  Pentecost  (Acts  1:41)  nothing  is  said 
about  the  agents.  The  baptism  of  the  Samaritans 
(including  Simon  Magus)  upon  the  preaching  of 
Philip  (8:12-16)  may  have  been  at  the  hands  of 
Philip  himself,  but  this  while  likely  cannot  be  cer- 
tainly inferred.  But  the  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian 
treasurer  certainly  was  Philip's  action  (8:38).  It 
is  remarkable  that  this  is  the  only  one  of  the  cases 
mentioned  in  Acts  where  the  agent  is  named.  Philip 
was  evidently  himself  a  disciple,  and  therefore  pre- 
sumably himself  baptized.  That  he  had  some 
authority  for  his  action  is  clear.  The  Lord  sent 
him  on  this  particular  mission.  Whether  he  had 
any  general  authority  from  Christ  directly  or  only 
indirectly  through  the  Jerusalem  church,  we  cannot 
certainly  say.     It  is  as  vain  to  infer  that  he  was 


TUE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  365 

only  a  "deacon''  and  therefore  not  "an  ordained 
minister,"  as  that  he  was  a  "general  evangelist" 
with  no  special  authority  from  any  church.  Con- 
jectures such  as  these,  made  with  an  eye  to  modern 
conditions,  have  no  value.  We  simply  do  not  know 
as  to  the  details.  That  he  was  a  man  of  influence 
in  the  church  at  Jerusalem  and  a  recognized  evan- 
gelist and  preacher  is  certainly  known.  And  these 
facts  are  sufficient  to  teach  us  that  he  was  no  un- 
baptized  and  irresponsible  man  baptizing  others  on 
his  own  motion,  and  without  reference  to  any 
authority  human  or  divine.  In  Paul's  case  (9:10-18; 
22:16)  the  agent  was  probably  though  not  certainly 
Ananias,  who  is  distinctly  called  "a  certain  dis- 
ciple"— with  what  that  implies — and  was  sent  by 
direct  command  of  the  Lord  to  encourage  Saul  of 
Tarsus  at  his  conversion.  If  we  cannot  infer  that 
Ananias  was  "an  ordained  minister"  of  the  church 
at  Damascus,  or  anywhere  else;  we  are  equally  for- 
bidden to  infer  that  he  was  an  unbaptized  individual 
acting  on  his  own  initiative.  In  case  of  Cornelius 
and  his  family  the  authority  of  Peter  (10:47,48)  is 
directly  affirmed,  though  the  actual  agent  is  not  men- 
tioned. But  it  is  clear  that  these  converts  were  not 
immersed  by  unimmersed  and  unauthorized  persons. 
In  the  cases  of  Lydia  (16:15)  and  the  jailor  (vs.  33) 
the  presence  of  Paul  gives  authority,  and  the  proba- 
bility is  that  either  he  or  Silas  performed  the  act. 
In  the  Epistles  there  are  but  few  references  to 
baptism,  and  only  one  that  bears  upon  the  question 
of  the  agent.  This  is  1  Cor.  1:13-17,  where  Paul 
speaks  of  his  having  baptized  Crispus  and  Gains  and 
a  few  others.     But  it  appears  from  this  that  the 


366  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

great  majority  of  the  Corinthian  Christians  had 
been  baptized  by  others  than  Paul.  By  whom  it  is 
of  course  impossible  to  say.  Paul  adds  here  that 
Christ  had  sent  him  ''not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach 
the  gospel."  This  language  has  sometimes  been 
made  to  mean  that  the  Apostle  had  a  slight  opinion 
of  baptism,  but  surely  in  the  light  of  Rom.  6  :l-4  and 
other  passages  from  his  writings  such  an  interpreta- 
tion is  wide  of  the  mark.  The  connection  here  shows 
that  the  Corinthians  were  making  too  much  of  the 
person  who  had  baptized  them,  as  a  matter  of  per- 
sonal and  partisan  loyalty,  and  Paul  most  earnestly 
rebukes  such  a  misuse.  The  person  of  the  agent  was 
far  less  important  than  baptism  itself,  and  even  bap- 
tism was  less  important  as  an  apostolic  function 
than  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel.  The  teaching 
of  the  passage  is  that  one  must  not  make  too  much 
of  the  person  by  whom  he  has  been  baptized.  So 
that  as  to  the  official  character  of  the  agent  here 
little  or  nothing  can  be  inferred. 

What  conclusions  then  shall  we  draw  from  all 
these  passages  as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  per- 
former of  baptism?  At  most  only  two:  (1)  That 
in  every  case  the  agent  was  himself  a  baptized  be- 
liever. This  is  distinctly  implied  in  most  cases  and 
is  generally  to  be  understood  in  all,  except  of  course 
in  that  of  John  the  Baptist,  who  as  the  introducer 
of  the  rite  may  not  himself  have  been  previously  bap- 
tized. (2)  The  other  inference  is  that  the  agent 
acted  under  some  kind  of  authority.  He  was  not 
an  irresponsible  individual  acting  on  his  own  im- 
pulses or  those  of  the  recipient  of  the  rite,  but  in 
some  way  was  an  authorized  representative  of  Christ 


THE  AGENT  IN   BAPTISM.  367 

and  the  community  of  believers ;  for  he  was  perform- 
ing an  act  whose  only  significance  was  derived  from 
the  command  of  Christ,  and  from  the  collective  life 
of  his  people.  Otherwise  the  rite  would  have  been 
meaningless.  We  must  suppose  some  sort  of  au- 
thority behind  the  act  to  give  it  dignity  and  mean- 
ing as  the  religious  rite  of  a  definite  body  of  people 
and  not  the  mere  dipping  of  one  by  another.  Cer- 
tainlj'  in  the  passages  considered  there  is  nothing 
to  forbid,  we  may  rather  say  everything  to  confirm, 
this  general  inference  for  the  possession  of  some 
sort  of  authority  by  the  agent  in  baptism. 

The  evident  difficulty  is  in  determining  how  the 
authority  was  conferred  and  recognized.  Do  the 
instances  mentioned  give  us  any  light  on  this  point? 
Three  things  are  here  to  be  borne  in  mind:  (a)  The 
divine  authority  lies  back  of  all,  and  this  was  made 
plain  generally  in  the  Commisison,  and  particularly 
in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist  (John  1 :30  ff.),  and 
sometimes  in  other  cases,  as  the  early  disciples 
(John  4:1,2),  Philip  (Acts  8:28,30,38) ,  and  probably 
Ananias  (Acts  9:10,11,18).  (b)  The  authority  of 
an  Apostle  is  stated  or  distinctly  implied  in  some 
cases,  as  in  that  of  Cornelius  (Acts  10:48),  and  the 
twelve  men  at  Ephesus  (19:1-7).  (c)  The  difficult 
question  remains.  In  the  absence  of  direct  divine 
or  apostolic  authority  how  was  the  general  divine 
authority  for  the  performance  of  baptism  received, 
understood  and  exercised  by  the  human  agent?  Here 
is  the  knot  of  the  whole  question,  and  here  we  have 
no  clear  light  but  are  shut  up  to  inferences  which, 
it  must  be  coofessed,  are  somewhat  remote  and  gen- 
eral.   One  of  three  theories  is  to  be  chosen,  accord- 


368  ORDINANCES  OP  THE   CHURCHES. 

ing  to  the  greater  probabilities.  The  first  is  that  the 
Apostles  appointed  official  men  who  should  carry 
on  baptism  and  other  official  acts  bj  performing 
them  themselves  and  appointing  others  to  keep  up 
the  official  succession  to  the  end  of  time.  This  is 
the  theory  of  "apostolic  succession,"  which,  what- 
ever may  be  said  for  its  historic  continuity,  breaks 
down  at  precisely  the  needy  point,  namely,  the 
Scripture  basis.  The  trouble  is  not  so  much  with 
the  historic  links  of  the  chain  as  with  the  staple 
which  should  fasten  it  to  the  Scriptures.  The  sec- 
ond theory  is  that  nothing  more  than  the  general 
divine  authority  expressed  in  the  Commission  was 
wanted;  that  any  believer  who  might  make  dis- 
ciples of  others  was  by  the  Commission  also  au- 
thorized to  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity. 
But  this  is  far  from  satisfactory ;  for  it  leaves  out  of 
account  the  community  of  believers  who  are  cer- 
tainly concerned  in  the  proper  performance  of  the 
rite,  and  does  not  sufficiently  safeguard  the  rite 
itself  from  whimsical  and  irresponsible  administra- 
tion. The  third  theory  is  the  best,  namely,  that  to 
the  community  of  believers  rather  than  to  the  in- 
dividual believer  was  committed  the  keeping  of  all 
the  Christian  traditions  (1  Cor.  11:2;  1  Tim.  3:15), 
including  the  i)roper  observance  of  baptism  and  the 
Supper.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  confirmed  not 
only  by  the  general  truth  that  any  community  must 
naturally  have  authority'  to  regulate  rites  and  cere- 
monies prerequisite  to  admission  into  its  member- 
ship, but  also  by  the  particular  fact  that  to  the 
churches  rather  than  to  an  official  class  or  to  in- 
dividual believers  the  preservation  and  perpetuation 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  369 

of  Christian  truth  and  practice  are  committed. 
Taken  in  connection  with  what  the  Scriptures  teach 
as  to  the  functions  of  the  churches  in  regard  to  all 
the  institutions  of  Christ,  as  the  earthly  representa- 
tives and  guardians  of  his  truth  and  commands,  it 
is  surely  safer  to  infer  that  baptism  is  to  be  per- 
formed under  the  secondary  and  derivative  au- 
thoritj'  of  the  churches  acting  for  Christ,  rather  than 
left  to  the  individual  agent  and  recipient  to  cele- 
brate as  they  may  see  fit. 

We  turn  now  to  the  historical  developments  of 
the  question  concerning  the  agent,  or  administrator, 
in  baptism.  Our  sketch  must  needs  be  brief,  but 
the  main  points  of  interest  may  at  least  be  outlined. 
More  detailed  information  must  be  sought  in  the 
Church  Histories,  special  treatises  and  articles  on 
baptism,  etc.  There  is  in  the  Herzog  Encyclopedia 
a  good  article  (Ketsertaufe)  by  Steitz,  which  has 
been  of  special  service  in  the  preparation  of  the  fol- 
lowing sketch. 

Baptism  administered  by  heretics  and  schismatics 
early  provoked  a  controversy  destined  to  be  long  and 
fierce.  The  question  was  whether  those  who  had 
been  baptized  by  persons  outside  the  church  could 
be  regarded  as  really  baptized  at  all,  and  so  be  re- 
ceived without  a  repetition  of  the  ceremony.  In 
the  early  stags  of  the  controversy  the  general  opinion 
seems  to  have  been  adverse  to  the  recognition  and 
acceptance  of  such  baptisms.  Thus  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (Stromata,  I.,  375,  as  cited  by  Steitz) 
declares  that  such  baptism  w^as  "not  proper  and 
genuine  water,"  that  is  use  of  water  for  baptism. 
And  Tertullian   (De  Baptismo,  c.  15)   argued  that 


3  70  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

heretics  could  not  give  what  they  did  not  have,  that 
is,  true  baptism,  which  belonged  to  the  church  alone, 
and  further  that  the  confession  of  a  heretic  at  bap- 
tism was  not  of  the  same  God  and  Christ  as  that  of 
the  orthodox. 

But  it  appears  that  from  the  first  there  was  not 
unanimity  among  the  teachers  if  the  church,  and 
later,  during  the  third  century,  the  controversy 
waxed  warm  and  came  to  a  head  in  the  dispute  be- 
tween Cyprian,  of  Carthage,  and  Stephen,  bishop 
of  Rome.  In  the  voluminous  correspondence  of 
Cyprian  this  matter  occupies  considerable  space,  a 
number  of  letters  being  devoted  to  it.  (vSee  the 
original  letters  in  Migne's  Patrol^gia  Latina:  trans- 
lations in  Oxford  edit,  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  Chris- 
tian Literature  series).  Eusebius  also  gives  some 
account  of  the  controversy  in  his  famous  Church 
Histori/,  Book  VII.,  ch.  2,8,9.  Cyprian  stoutly  main- 
tained the  strict  opinion  and  developed  with  great 
acuteness  and  vigor  the  view  formerly  advocated 
by  Tertullian;  fortifying  his  argument  by  his  well- 
known  views  upon  the  unity  of  the  church.  Since 
the  church  is  one,  and  but  one,  it  is  impossible  that 
any  so-called  baptism  performed  without  its  official 
sanction  could  be  a  real  baptism.  On  this  point 
Cyprian  had  the  support  of  Firmilian,  bishop  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  in  the  East,  and  of  a  large 
following  in  North  Africa.  On  the  other  hand 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  while  somewhat  wavering 
in  opinion,  wrote  to  Stephen,  of  Rome,  a  letter 
(Euseb.,  E.  E.,  Bk.  VII.,  c.  2-9)  in  which  he  de- 
clared that  the  ancient  practice  had  been  to  receive 
into  the  church  any  who  came  from  any  heresy  what- 


THE  AGENT  IN   BAPTISM.  371 

ever  with  a  baptism,  by  "imposition  of  the  hands 
and  prayer."  This  view  Stephen  upheld  with  all 
his  might,  and  the  controversy  raged  between  him 
and  Cyprian  till  both  suffered  martyrdom.  Stephen's 
opinion  was  that  the  administrator  did  not  count 
for  anything,  the  act  was  the  thing,  and  when  once 
performed  needed  no  repetition.  It  could  be  ac- 
cepted and  validated  by  the  repentance  of  the  con- 
vert and  the  confirmation  of  the  bishop.  He  seems 
to  have  adopted  this  view  largely  to  facilitate  the 
return  of  heretics  to  the  true  church.  This  became 
the  Roman  opinion  and  practice,  and  gained  on  the 
other  so  much  that  it  was  endorsed  by  the  Council 
of  Nicaea  in  325,  and  the  Synod  of  Carthage  in  348. 

During  the  progress  of  this  controversy  in  the 
third  century  it  is  of  interest  to  remember  that  the 
Novatians,  among  the  heretics,  maintained  for  their 
side  similar  strict  opinions  as  those  of  CN'prian  for 
the  church.  They  held  that  baptisms  performed 
in  the  church  could  not  pass  with  them,  but  that 
those  who  joined  their  sect  must  be  baptized  by 
their  own  officials.  This  contention  was  subse- 
(luently  made  also  by  the  Donatists,  against  whom 
the  great  Augustine  took  up  the  gage  of  combat 
early  in  the  fourth  century,  and  won  the  day  for  the 
Roman  view. 

The  controversy  between  Augustine  and  the 
Donatists  was  very  important.  Newman  says  (Anti- 
paedohaptism,  p.  19):  ''The  Donatists  added  to 
the  disciplinary  code  of  the  Montanists  and 
Novatians  the  dogma  that  the  validity  of  the  ordi- 
nances, especially  baptism,  depends  on  the  character 
of  the  administrator."    Augustine  against  these  es- 


372  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tablished  the  Catholic  practice  of  receiving  heretical 
baptisms  after  confirmation  as  valid.  His  position 
is  thus  concisely  set  forth  by  Steitz :  The  ground 
thought  rests  on  the  objectivity  of  baptism,  which 
in  its  working,  as  independent  of  the  quality  of  both 
administrator  and  recipient,  is  conditioned  solely 
upon  the  understanding  of  the  latter.  If  he  re- 
ceives it  as  a  sinner  or  heretic  it  does  him  no  good, 
but  if  he  renounces  his  sin  or  heresy,  then  grace 
works  through  the  act  already  received  and  effects 
his  salvation.  Baptism  was  regarded  as  a  sort 
of  indelible  stamp  which  might  be  put  upon  the 
recipient  by  any  one  at  all,  but  would  be  a  real 
token  of  salvation  only  within  the  church.  The 
heretical  outsider,  or  the  lapsed  member  might  thus 
have  the  stamp  without  the  reality  which  it  properly 
signified. 

During  the  Middle  Ages  the  status  of  the  question 
in  the  Roman  Church  remained  as  it  had  been  fixed 
by  the  practice  of  Stephen  and  the  logic  of  Augus- 
tine. There  was  only  restatement  and  elaboration 
of  the  established  Roman  theory.  Steitz  quotes 
Peter  the  Lombard  as  endorsing  Augustine's  views 
and  saying :  "From  these  it  is  clearly  gathered  that 
even  those  who  have  been  baptized  by  heretics,  just 
so  the  mark  of  Christ  has  been  preserved,  are  not  to 
be  rebaptized,  but  only  to  be  reconciled  by  the  im- 
position of  the  hand,  that  they  may  receive  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  in  token  of  their  complete  renunciation 
of  the  heretics."  Thomas  Aquinas  and  other  school- 
men, with  characteristic  subtlety,  were  accustomed 
to  distinguish  between  the  mere  act  (sacramentum) , 
which   might   be   performed   by   any   one,    and   the 


THE   AGENT   IN   BAPTISM.  373 

sacramental  effect  {res  saoximcnti) ,  which  was  con- 
ditioned on  penitence  and  confirmation. 

In  regard  to  tlie  mediaeval  heretics,  while  it  seems 
probable  that  some  still  maintained  the  old  Xovatian 
and  Donatist  views,  the  authorities  consulted  for 
this  study  give  no  definite  information. 

During  the  Reformation  period  (1517-1G48)  new 
phases  of  the  question  necessarily  arise.  In  the 
Catholic  church,  however,  the  question  was  settled, 
and  the  Council  of  Trent  only  put  its  seal  upon  the 
long  established  principles :  that  the  administrator 
counted  for  little  or  nothing;  the  act  itself  was  im- 
portant; and  the  views  and  status  of  the  recipient 
were  the  main  thing.  Thus  if  one  had  been  baptized 
by  any  administrator  whatever  and  came  into  the 
church,  his  own  conversion  healed  whatever  irregu- 
larity existed  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  and  the 
imposition  of  hands  in  confirmation  validated  the 
baptism  on  the  part  of  the  church.  This  remains 
the  modern  Catholic  view,  so  that  sometimes  in 
emergency  cases  baptism  even  by  women  has  been 
accepted. 

Among  the  Reformers  Luther  held  (according  to 
Steitz)  that  Augustine's  opinion  was  correct,  so  that 
baptism  even  at  the  hands  of  Catholics  could  be  ac- 
cepted, saying  to  the  Anabaptists :  'Tut  off  error 
(i.  e.,  of  doctrine  or  life)  and  the  act  remains  all 
right  without  renewal."'  Of  course  if  he  would  ac- 
cept a  baptism  that  had  been  performed  in  the 
Catholic  church  he  w^ould  take  any  performed  in 
another  communion.  These,  however,  were  emergency 
cases.  Luther  probably  held  that  the  regular  per- 
formance by  a  recognized  minister  in  the  constituted 


374  ORDINANCES  OP  THE   CHURCHES. 

church  was  the  better  way.  Certainly  this  was 
Calvin's  opinion.  For  he  says  (Inst.  Thcol.,  Bk.  IV., 
ch.  XV..  sec.  20)  :  ''It  is  not  right  for  priva temper- 
sons  to  take  upon  themselves  the  administration  of 
baptism;  for  this,  as  well  as  the  administration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  part  of  the  public  ministry 
of  the  church."  He  goes  on  to  dispute  the  validity 
of  baptism  by  laymen  and  women,  and  argues  from 
the  Commission  that  "Christ  constitutes  the  same 
persons  preachers  of  the  gospel  and  administrators 
of  baptism,"  and  "whoever  baptizes  without  a 
legitimate  call  intrudes  into  another  person's  office." 
Yet  in  case  of  necessity  he  seems  to  have  admitted 
(according  to  Steitz,  p.  659)  that  a  baptism  might 
be  accepted  which  had  been  performed  by  a  min- 
ister of  another  communion,  provided  there  was  a 
protest,  expressed  or  implied,  against  the  irregu- 
larity. 

The  views  of  the  Anabaptists  of  this  period  on 
the  agent  in  baptism  are  difficult  to  get  at  and  were 
probably  not  uniform.  In  regard  to  those  of 
Switzerland,  Schaff  {Church  Hist.,  VII.,  p.  78)  says: 
"Any  one  could  administer  the  ordinance  upon 
penitent  believers  who  desired  it."  But  this  prob- 
ably means  that  they  did  not  consider  an  ordained 
officer  necessary,  for  their  distinctive  practice  of 
giving  baptism  to  believers,  no  matter  whether  bap- 
tized in  infancy  or  not,  made  any  reference  to  the 
administrator  in  those  cases  superfluous.  What 
they  would  have  done  or  did  actually  practise  in 
cases  of  believers  baptized  by  others  than  them- 
selves does  not  appear. 

The   English    Baptists   toward   the   end    of   this 


THE  AGENT  IN   BAPTISM.  375 

great  transition  epoch  present  an  interesting  study 
in  connection  with  the  agent  in  baptism.  A  con- 
fession of  faith  put  forth  by  a  body  of  them  in  1643 
says:  "The  person  designated  by  Christ  to  dis- 
pense baptism,  the  Scriptures  hold  forth  to  be  a 
disciple;  it  being  nowhere  tied  to  a  particular 
church  officer,  or  person  extraordinarily  sent — the 
commission  enjoining  administration  being  to  them 
as  considered  disciples,  being  men  able  to  preach 
the  gospel."  This  language,  fairly  understood,  only 
means  that  an  ordained  minister  was  not  then  con- 
sidered necessary;  it  does  not  say  or  imply  what 
the  framers  thought  as  to  a  baptism  performed  by 
any  other  than  a  ''disciple,"  and  it  is  not  clear 
whether  they  meant  by  this  to  include  other  than 
''disciples"  of  their  own  sort.  Yet  it  cannot  be 
positively  affirmed  that  they  would  not  have  in- 
cluded under  the  term  Christians  of  any  evan- 
gelical faith  who  were  "able  to  preach  the  gospel." 
More  to  the  point  is  the  incident  related  by  Crosby 
in  his  Historji  of  the  English  Baj)tists  (Vol.  I.,  p. 
96  ff.  See  also  Whitsitt's  A  Question  in  Baptist 
History).  Some  who  had  adopted  Baptist  views  and 
had  never  been  immersed  were  troubled  as  to  what 
they  should  do,  and  sentiment  was  divided.  Some 
held  that  they  might  immerse  themselves  and  thus 
start  again  an  ordinance  which  had  passed  out  of 
use  in  its  proper  form ;  others  maintained  that  be- 
lievers taking  each  other  into  covenant  relation  as 
a  church  could  begin  anew  the  scriptural  act  of  bap- 
tism without  seeking  to  get  into  any  supposed  and 
doubtful  line  of  succession  from  ancient  times. 
Others  felt  that  this  was  not  sufficient,  and  while  the 


37()  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

line  of  succession  could  not  certainly  be  proved,  it 
was  their  duty  to  find,  if  possible,  some  who  had 
practised  immersion  before  them,  in  the  hope  that 
these  might  have  received  it  from  others  before  them ; 
and  that  they  should  go  thus  as  far  as  possible  to- 
ward securing  the  proper  baptismal  succession ;  and 
inasmuch  as  they  heard  that  some  in  Holland  had 
so  practised  baptism,  they  despatched  Richard 
Blount  to  Holland  to  receive  immersion  at  their 
hands  and  bring  it  to  England.  It  thus  appears 
that  at  least  this  group  of  early  English  Baptists 
felt  that  immersion  in  the  agent  himself  was  es- 
sential to  a  regular  scriptural  baptism,  and  they 
practised  accordingly.  About  the  same  time  Roger 
Williams  was  having  trouble  on  the  subject  in  this 
country.  He  had  become  convinced  that  the  im- 
mersion of  a  beliver  on  confession  of  faith  was  the 
only  true  baptism,  and  wishing  for  himself  and 
others  to  be  scripturally  baptized  he  could  find  no 
baptized  person  to  perform  the  act.  He  therefore 
baptized  Ezekiel  Holliman  and  in  turn  received  bap- 
tism at  his  hands.  He  soon  became  dissatisfied  with 
this  and  left  the  little  church  he  had  founded,  re- 
maining the  rest  of  his  life  without  church  connec- 
tion, in  his  own  phrase,  "a  seeker,"  He  believed 
that  the  true  line  of  succession  was  lost  and  could 
not  be  found,  so  that  a  real  scriptural  baptism 
could  not  now  be  had.  Thus  already  in  early  En- 
glish and  American  Baptist  history  the  problem  of 
the  suitable  agent  in  baptism  had  arisen  and  was 
causing  trouble. 

This  brings  us  to  the  modern  period    (1648  till 
now),  in  which  we  find  conditions  and  opinions  to 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  377 

be  very  much  as  determined  by  previous  historical 
developments.  Thus  in  the  Roman  Church  the 
canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  allowing  heretical 
and  other  irregular  baptisms,  are  still  the  law. 

Protestant  Pfedobaptists  still  hold  substantially 
the  views  of  the  Reformers.    Thus  for  the  Lutherans 
Knapp  (Christinn  Thcologij,  p.  487)  says  that  ordi- 
narily baptism  should  be  administered  by  teachers 
of  the  church,  but  they  have  "no  exclusive  right  to 
it,''  and  "in  case  of  necessity,  and  when  no  teachers 
can  be  obtained,  baptism  may  be  administered  by 
any  Christian,  and  is  valid  if  it  be  performed  ac- 
cording to  the  institution  of  Christ."    For  the  Pres- 
byterians, Hodge   (Sijst.  TheoL,  Vol.  III.,  p.  514) 
says:    ''Lutherans  and  Reformed  agree  in  teaching, 
first,  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  does  not  de- 
pend on  anything  in  him  who  administers  them;  and 
second,  that  as  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  sacra- 
ments are  united  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  a  matter 
of  order  and  propriety  that  the  sacraments  should 
be  administered  by  those  only  who  have  been  duly 
called  and  appointed  to  the  service."     He  quotes 
the    Westminster    Confession    to    the    effect    that 
"neither   of   which    (the   ordinances)    may   be    dis- 
pensed by  any  but  by  a  minister  of  the  Word  law- 
fully ordained."     But  in  discussing  the  validity  of 
the  sacraments  (p.  523  ff.)  Hodge  holds  that,  though 
irregular,  baptisms  performed  by  other  than  duly 
ordained  ministers  are  not  invalid,  if  both  the  form 
and  the  intention  of  agent  and  recipient  are  correct 
according  to  the  Scriptures.    In  the  English  Church, 
opinion  has  been  somewhat  divided.  Some,  especially 
of  the  High-church  party,  hold  essentially  Angus- 


37y  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tine's  view,  that  baptism  once  performed,  no  matter 
by  whom,  puts  a  sort  of  indelible  stamp  on  the 
recipient  and  needs  no  repeating,  but  only  confirma- 
tion to  validate  it.  (See  the  articles  on  Baptism 
and  on  Lay-Baptism  in  Blunt's  Diet,  of  Doctrinal 
and  Historical  Theol.)  This  of  course  is  to  be  under- 
stood of  emergency  cases,  the  regular  performance 
by  an  ordained  priest  of  the  Church  of  England  is 
the  desirable  thing.  But  some  Episcopalians  do 
not  admit  lay  and  dissenters'  baptisms,  insisting 
that  there  should  be  repetition  of  the  act  by  a 
regularly  ordained  priest  of  the  Church.  This  view 
is  ably  defended  by  Waterland  in  his  Letters  on 
Lay  Baptism  (^Vorks,  Vol.  VI.).  For  cases  of  un- 
certainty a  rubric  of  the  Prayer-book  provides, 
directing  the  priest  to  say,  ^'If  thou  be  not  already 
baptized,  I  baptize  thee,  etc."  The  Methodist  view 
may  be  found  in  McClintock  and  Strong's  Encyclo- 
paedia in  the  article  on  Lay  Baptism,  and  in  Dr. 
T.  0.  Summers'  treatise  on  Baptism.  It  is  sub- 
stantially that  of  other  Pfedobaptists,  namely,  that 
the  regular  order  requires  the  performance  at  the 
hands  of  an  ordained  minister,  but  ''in  case  of  neces- 
sity baptism  may  be  performed  by  any  Christian, 
and  is  valid  if  performed  according  to  Christ's  order 
in  Matt.  28 :19." 

Among  Baptists  the  question  has  assumed  a  dif- 
ferent phase  because  of  their  rejection  of  infant 
baptism  and  of  any  other  act  than  immersion  as  the 
true  scriptural  baptism.  We  have  seen  that  the 
early  English  and  American  Baptists  had  trouble 
on  this  point,  and  it  has  since  remained  a  difficult 
question,  Avhich  is  deferred  to  the  next  chapter. 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  379 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  BAPTIST  PR0BLE:\I  OF  THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM. 

I.  The  Problem  Stated. 

1.  Why  a  problem. 

2.  Elements  of  the  problem. 

II.  Solutions  Proposed. 

1.  The  strict  view. 

(1)  As  to  qualifications. 

(a)  A  believer. 

(b)  Baptized  (immersed). 

(c)  Acting  under  authority  of  a  church. 

(2)  As  to  validity.    Lack  of  these  invalidates. 

(3)  Difficulties  of  this  view. 

2.  The  liberal  view. 

(1)  As  to  qualification. 

(a)  A  Christian  sufficient. 

(b)  No  church  authority  required. 

(2)  As  to  validity. 

(a)  Depends  on  recipient,  not  agent. 

(b)  Psedobaptist  immersions  valid. 

(3)  Difficulties  of  this  view. 

3.  The  conservative  view. 

(1)  Prefers  in  main  the  strict  view. 

(2)  Argues  from  good  order  and  expediency. 

(3)  Emphasizes  the  liberty  of  each  church. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM. 


THE  BAPTIST  PROBLEM. 


Baptists  have  never  been  able  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment among  themselves  on  the  question  of  the 
agent,  or  administrator,  of  baptism.  Immersions  re- 
ceived at  the  hands  of  other  than  Baptist  ministers 
have  received  the  name  of  "alien  immersions,"  and 
the  question  of  the  validity  of  these  for  admission 
into  a  Baptist  church  has  been  considerably  de- 
bated. The  literature  of  the  controversy  is  to  be 
sought  mostly  in  newspaper  and  magazine  articles. 
One  little  book,  Pedohaptist  and  Camphellite  Im- 
mersions, by  A.  C.  Dayton,  was  published  some  years 
ago,  and  has  recently  been  reprinted.  In  1903  a 
debate  was  held  in  the  First  Baptist  church  of 
Sumter,  South  Carolina,  between  the  pastor,  Dr. 
C.  C.  Brown,  and  Dr.  J.  J.  Porter,  of  Missouri,  and 
the  speeches  were  subsequently  published  under  the 
title  of  The  Sumter  Discussion.  The  literature  re- 
veals the  fact  that  the  great  men  of  the  denomina- 
tion found  themselves  not  at  one  on  this  question. 
Honored  names  appear  on  both  sides,  and  they  de- 
mand respect 

Owing  to  their  views  as  to  both  the  act  and  the 
recipients  of  baptism,  the  position  of  the  Baptists 
must  of  necessity  be  different  from  those  of  both 

380 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  381 

Catholics  and  Protestant  Psedobaptists  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  agent.  For  the  question  is  not  simply 
whether  the  agent  must  have  requisite  church 
authority,  but  also  whether  he  must  himself  be  an 
immersed  believer.  The  question  thus  becomes  a 
serious  problem,  because  if  involves  the  whole  Bap- 
tist theory  of  the  church  and  the  ordinances :  the 
membership,  authority,  officers,  independency  of  the 
churches  are  concerned,  and  the  act,  meaning  and 
recipients  of  baptism.  The  question  cannot  be  de- 
cided without  reference  to  all  these  things.  Further, 
the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  is  involved,  for  it  is 
the  avowed  and  earnest  purpose  of  Baptists  to  seek 
the  solution  of  all  such  questions  in  the  Bible;  and 
as  we  have  seen,  the  teaching  of  Scripture  is  not 
very  clear  on  this  particular  point,  being  chiefly  a 
matter  of  inference.  As  a  consequence  there  has 
always  been  and  tliere  remains  great  diversity  of 
opinion  among  Baptists  on  this  question.  In  view 
of  all  this  it  is  well  to  have  the  elements  of  the 
problem  clearly  outlined.  There  are  two  main  ques- 
tions to  be  considered:  (1)  What  constitutes  a 
properly  qualified  agent  for  the  performance  of 
Christian  baptism?  (2)  Does  the  agent's  lack  of 
j)roper  qualification  invalidate  the  act?  It  is  evident 
that  if  agreement  could  be  reached  on  these  ques- 
tions, the  practical  difficulties  would  take  care  of 
themselves.  But  it  is  precisely  the  practical  diffi- 
culties that  have  arisen  which  make  it  necessary 
to  raise  these  theoretical  questions.  The  practical 
side  of  the  problem  has  been  well  stated  by  Dayton 
{Pedohaptist  Immersions,  Chap.  1)  as  follows:  ''It 
is  whether  a  person  who  has  been  immersed  upon 


.382  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

profession  of  his  faith  by  a  Psedobaptist  minister, 
acting"  in  behalf  of  a  Psedobaptist  church,  and  who 
thereafter  shall  apply  for  admission  as  a  member  of 
a  Baptist  church,  shall  by  that  church  be  regarded 
as  having  been  truly  baptized,  or  not  baptized  at 
all?  If  he  has  been  baptized,  the  ordinance  must 
not  be  repeated;  for  Christ  requires  but  one  bap- 
tism. If  not  baptized,  the  ordinance  must  be  ad- 
ministered, for  Christ  requires  that  every  member 
of  his  church  shall  have  been  baptized.  Here,  then, 
is  the  point  which  the  church  must  determine:  Was 
that  immersion  a  true  baptism,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  or  was  it  not?  Upon  her  decision  of  this 
question  her  action  in  regard  to  his  reception  will 
depend."  At  once  we  see  that  the  question  recurs 
to  the  qualification  of  the  agent,  and  to  the  validity 
of  his  performance. 

The  solutions  proposed  for  this  problem  must 
next  engage  our  attention,  and  these  may  be  for 
convenience  called  respectively  (and  respectfully) 
the  strict,  the  liberal,  and  the  conservative  views  of 
the  subject. 

Those  Baptists  who  maintain  the  strict  view  of 
the  question  before  us  hold,  in  answer  to  the  first 
inquiry,  that  the  proper  scriptural  qualifications  of 
an  agent  in  baptism  are  three:  First,  he  must  be  a 
believer;  second,  an  immersed  believer;  third,  acting 
for  and  under  authority  of  a  New  Testament  church 
or  churches,  which  now  means  Baptist  churches. 
Let  us  examine  these  qualifications.  As  to  the  first, 
there  is  little  dispute;  for,  with  the  exception  of 
emergency  cases  among  the  Catholics— and  even 
there    not    without    question — practical    unanimity 


THE  AGENT  IN  DAl'TISM. 


383 


exists  among  Christians  of  all  names  and  periods. 
All  parties  practically  agree  that  no  one  but  a  pro- 
fessing Christian  should  be  considered  a  proper 
agent  in  baptism.  If  it  turns  out  that  the  agent 
was  a  hypocrite  at  the  time,  or  ceased  to  profess 
Christianity  afterwards,  this  is  universally  and  cor- 
rectly held  not  to  invalidate  the  act  performed  and 
accepted,  by  all  interested  at  the  time,  as  done  in 
good  faith  an^  with  intent  to  do  the  Lord's  will. 
Those  who  defend  the  strict  Baptist  view  add 
further  that  the  agent  was  acting  as  the  authorized 
official  of  a  church  or  a  sisterhood  of  churches,  and 
therefore  the  act  is  otlficially  valid.  Of  course  nobody 
would  deliberately  choose  an  unbeliever  or  hypocrite 
to  perform  the  act  of  baptism.  The  difficulty  here 
is  common  to  all  theories  and  is  answered  practically 
in  the  same  way  by  all  ])arties. 

The  second  qualification  is  that  the  agent  shall 
be  an  immersed  believer.  Here,  leaving  out  the 
Catholics,  the  disputants  divide  into  three  groups. 
The  majority  of  Pi^dobaptists,  judging  from  their 
writings,  would  say  a  ^'baptized  believer,"  not  speci- 
fying what  act  is  baptism.  Some  Baptists  and  some 
Pffidobaptists  would  not  require  any  baptism  at  all, 
and  this  leaves  the  strict  Baptist  as  the  sole  de- 
fender of  immersion  as  requisite.  But  he  has  a  good 
woi'd  to  say  for  himself  and  needs  nobody's  sym- 
pathy in  his  supposed  isolation.  For  certainly  every 
case  of  Christian  baptism  mentioned  in  the  Scrip- 
tures either  plainly  indicates  or  necessarily  implies 
the  previous  baptism  of  the  agent;  and  the  general 
sentiment  of  the  Christian  world  and  the  testimony 
of  Christian  history  are  on  his  side.     For  these  re- 


384  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

quire  baptism  as  a  requisite  in  the  agent,  and  a  Bap- 
tist cannot  admit  that  anything  but  immersion  is 
baptism. 

The  third  qualification  is  that  the  agent  must 
act  under  the  authority  of  a  scriptural  church.  This 
at  once  raises  the  question  as  to  what  is  a  true 
church,  and  whether  one  not  constituted  on  New 
Testament  principles  can  give  authority  for  the  per- 
formance of  the  Christian  ordinance — at  least  for 
those  churches  that  are  conformed  to  scriptural 
teachings.  On  this  point  the  strict  Baptist  is  prac- 
tically alone.  For  the  Catholic  position  is  that  no 
church  authority  is  requisite,  and  the  Psedobaptist? 
bodies  generally  regard  each  other  as  churches,  and 
the  liberal  Baptist — strange  to  say — finds  himself 
in  the  company  of  the  Catholic.  But  in  spite  of  all 
this  the  strict  Baptist  not  on]j  holds  his  position, 
but  considers  this  the  main  point  in  his  contention. 
The  logic  of  his  situation  is  simply  this:  Besides 
the  supreme  authority  of  Christ  as  expressed  in  the 
Commission,  which  all  parties  equally  admit  and 
claim,  there  must  be  some  secondary  and  visible 
authority  on  earth  for  the  regulation  of  baptism  as 
of  other  Christian  institutions.  Irresponsible  and 
indiscriminate  performance  of  the  ordinances  by 
individuals  acting  only  upon  their  own  initiative, 
was  not  contemplated  in  the  arrangements  of  our 
Lord  and  his  inspired  Apostles.  Both  the  teachings 
of  Scripture  and  the  judgment  of  reason  favor  the 
opinion  that  there  must  be  some  responsible  visible 
institution  for  the  maintenance  and  proper  ob 
servance  of  the  distinctively  Christian  practices. 
Here  common  judgment  is  again  practically  one  in 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  385 

saying  that  the  church  is  that  institution.  But  here, 
too,  alas !  there  comes  to  view  that  age-long  diversity 
among  Christians  as  to  what  is  the  true  church. 
There  is  liberty  for  all,  and  so  each  body  must  de- 
cide that  question  for  itself  without  imposing  its 
decisions  on  others.  In  the  exercise  of  this  hard- 
won  right  Baptists  have  decided  for  themselves  what 
is  a  true  church,  and  are  trying  faithfully  to  live 
up  to  their  convictions,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  pre- 
vious studies.  If,  then,  the  church  is  to  regulate 
and  authorize  (under  Christ,  as  interpreter  and 
executive  of  his  will)  the  performance  of  the  ordi- 
nances, and  the  Baptist  view  of  the  church  is  the 
correct  and  scriptural  one,  it  follows  that  for  Bap- 
tists the  authority  to  baptize  must  come  from  a 
Baptist  church.  This  is  all  that  the  strict  Baptist 
contends  for  in  this  connection.  He  does  not  deny 
the  natural  right  of  other  Christians  to  call  them- 
selves churches  and  to  practise  and  authorize  their 
modes  of  observing  the  ordinances ;  nor  does  he  seek 
otherwise  than  by  example  and  persuasion  to  urge 
on  others  his  own  views  of  truth  and  practice.  The 
sum  of  his  contention,  then,  regarding  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  agent  in  baptism  is  the  threefold  state- 
ment that  such  an  agent  must  be  an  immersed  be- 
liever acting  upon  the  authority  of  a  Baptist  church. 
The  other  inquiry  is  now  to  be  considered,  namely, 
Does  the  lack  of  qualification  in  the  agent  invalidate 
his  baptisms?  Or,  to  put  it  dift'erently,  Must  an 
agent  have  all  these  qualifications  in  order  that  his 
immersions  may  be  accepted  by  Baptists  as  real 
Christian  baptisms?  or  may  some  be  spared;  and 
if  so,  which?     Those  who  hold  the  strict  theory  do 


386  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

not  hesitate  to  answer  these  questions.  They  say 
that  the  absence  of  qualification  in  the  agent  does 
invalidate  the  immersions  he  performs ;  that  not  one 
of  the  qualifications  can  be  spared ;  and  that  no  im- 
mersion except  one  performed  by  an  agent  thus 
qualified  should  be  received  as  satisfactory  by  a 
Baptist  church.  All  persons  who  come  as  appli- 
cants for  membership  with  immersions  performed 
by  unqualified  agents  should  be  baptized  in  the 
regular  way  before  being  received  into  fellowship. 
This  is  not  /e-baptism  in  any  proper  sense,  for  the 
former  immersion  was  not  a  true  baptism.  The 
candidate  will  indeed  have  been  immersed  twice, 
but  baptized  only  once. 

This  theory  has  its  difficulties.  One  is  that  it  has 
only  scant  scriptural  support ;  some  would  say  none 
at  all.  lint  our  survey  of  the  Scriptures  has  shown 
that  some  reasons  can  be  urged  from  them  in  be- 
half of  the  requirements  that  a  baptizer  should  be 
himself  baptized  and  have  some  authority — in- 
ferentially  that  of  a  church — behind  him. 

A  second  difficulty,  of  w^hich  a  great  deal  has 
been  made  by  opponents,  is  that  the  theory,  to  be 
strictly  logical,  requires  a  line  of  baptized  agents 
back  to  the  Apostles,  and  that  no  such  line  has 
been,  or  can  be,  made  out;  that  it  is  absurd  for  a 
Baptist  to  reject  Apostolic  succession  in  bishops, 
and  then  contend  for  a  baptismal  succession  through 
what  he  calls  ''church  perpetuity."  Opponents 
further  allege  that  a  man  cannot  ordinarily  be  sure 
more  than  a  few  links  back  from  himself  that  there 
has  not  been  a  break  in  the  line,  and  to  say  nothing 
of  the  lack  of  historical  evidence  for  unbroken  con- 


THE  AGENT  IX   HAPTISM.  387 

tinnitv  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  this  alone 
would  render  it  doubtful  whether  any  one  has  been 
regularly  baptized.  If  there  is  a  flaw  anywhere  it 
invalidates  all  the  baptisms  that  follow  it.  There 
is  undoubted  force  in  this  objection,  and  the  up- 
holders of  the  strict  theory  have  tried  in  various 
ways  to  meet  it.  Some  urge  the  indications  of  a 
true  church  succession  and  claim  it  as  perhaps  an 
un])roved,  but  also  not  f//.sproved,  probability  in  view 
of  the  promise  of  Christ  in  ^latt.  16:18.  But  the 
main  contention  is  that  the  authority  of  a  church 
now  ostensibly  organized  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures is  the  principal  warrant  for  performing  the 
ordinance,  and  where  this  authority  has  been  given, 
the  recipient  may  feel  easy  in  his  mind  as  to  having 
received  a  proper  baptism.  Others  plead  the  neces- 
sities of  the  case  and  say  that  if  it  became  necessary 
at  some  point  for  the  true  people  of  Christ  to  start 
afresh  with  the  warrant  of  Scripture  for  their  in- 
stitutions, when  they  had  actually  conformed  their 
t'hurches  to  the  Word  of  God,  that  suffices  till  it 
may  be  necessary  again;  meantime  it  is  not  required 
or  proper  to  make  an  emergency  where  it  does  not 
exist,  and  accept  baptisms  without  proper  authori- 
zation. Here  are  churches,  organized  as  nearly  as 
possible  according  to  the  principles  of  Scripture;  it 
is  not  necessary  to  consider  their  near  or  remote 
origin.  As  scriptural  churches  they  are  the  proper 
depositaries  and  guardians  of  Christ's  truth  and 
ordinances.  But  in  granting  the  requisite  authority 
to  perform  baptism  these  churches  still  must  be 
guided  by  the  other  two  principles,  which  require 
that  an  agent  must  be  a  believer  and  himself  bap- 


388  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

tized.  Again,  it  is  urged  that  the  doubt  in  this  case 
is  only  parallel  to  that  in  regard  to  the  character  of 
the  agent.  Nobody  can  be  sure  that  the  man  who 
baptizes  him  is  not  a  false  agent  with  forged 
credentials,  but  he  is  acting  as  the  authorized  agent 
of  a  scripturally  constituted  church,  and  his  act  is 
held  to  be  valid. 

A  third  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  strict  view  is 
that  it  would  logically  require  Baptist  churches  to 
disfellowship  each  other  on  this  question,  if  pushed 
to  its  extreme  consequences.  But  there  the  uphold- 
ers of  the  theory  simply  deny.  They  contend  as 
earnestly  as  any  other  Baptists  for  the  sovereignty 
(under  Christ)  and  independency  of  the  churches. 
No  one  has  put  this  more  strongly  than  Dayton  him^ 
self,  who  says  {Paedohaptist  Immersions,  p.  115)  : 
"We  liope  and  trust  it  will  be  no  cause  of  non-fellow- 
ship between  brethren  or  churches.  And  we  also 
agree  with  him  (Dr.  John  L.  Waller)  most  perfectly 
in  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  question  of  church  duty, 
which  must  in  each  case  be  decided  by  the  church 
to  which  application  may  be  made  to  receive  such  a 
baptism ;  and  that  from  the  decision  of  that  church 
there  can  be  no  appeal  to  any  earthly  tribunal."  He 
elsewhere  (p.  235)  describes  the  receiving  of  improper 
baptisms  as  an  error  which  does  not  destroy  the  true 
scriptural  character  of  the  church  or  give  ground 
for  withholding  fellowship  from  it. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  liberal  Baptist  view 
— which  has  been  so  demominated  out  of  respect  for 
those  who  hold  it,  and  not  at  all  as  implying  that 
the  others  are  illiberal.  On  the  first  query  as  to 
the  qualifications  of  the  agent  the  liberal  view  is 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM.  389 

that  the  general  qualification  of  being  a  Christian 
is  sufficient.  It  is  indeed  desirable,  for  regularity 
and  order,  that  the  accredited  ministers  of  each  de- 
nomination should  administer  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, but  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  this  is  an 
indispensable  requisite.  If  a  man  is  a  Christian  and 
immerses  a  candidate  at  his  request  in  the  manner 
required  by  the  Commission,  it  is  not  wise  or  tenable 
to  insist  on  any  other  qualification.  Thus  Dr. 
Francis  Wayland  (quoted  by  Dayton,  p.  18)  says: 
"It  is  convenient,  as  a  matter  of  church  order,  that 
there  should  be  some  general  rule,  and  that  this 
rite  should  be  administered  by  a  clergyman,  and 
it  would  naturally  be  performed  by  one  who  had 
himself  been  baptized  by  immersion.  But  if  these 
things  be  absent,  from  necessity  or  ignorance,  they 
alter  not  the  fact  that  the  person  who  has  been  im- 
mersed on  profession  of  faith  is,  as  I  understand  it, 
a  baptized  believer."  And  in  regard  to  the  authority 
to  baptize,  Dr.  W.  B.  Johnson  said  (Dayton,  p.  19)  : 
"Whoever  is  authorized  to  preach  is  authorized  to 
baptize — the  latter  being  the  minor  work.  I  there- 
fore receive  those  who  are  recognized  as  preachers 
by  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  all 
orthodox  bodies  of  believers,  as  preachers  of  the 
gospel,  and  receiving  them  in  this  relation,  I  receive 
them  as  baptizers." 

As  to  the  validity  of  immersions  performed  by 
Psedobaptists,  this  of  course  follows.  They  may  be 
accepted  by  Baptist  churches  without  question,  no 
repetition  of  the  ceremony  being  necessary.  This 
view  is  defended  on  the  principle  that  the  validity 
of  baptism  does  not  at  all  depend  on  the  agent,  but 


390  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

wholly  on  tlie  candidate  and  the  form.  If  it  be  an 
immersion  on  profession  of  faith,  sincerely  done  as 
unto  the  Lord  and  with  intention  to  do  what  he  re- 
quires, that  makes  it  a  valid  baptism,  without  any 
reference  whatever  to  the  agent.  This  view  has  been 
stated  by  Dr.  A.  H.  Strong  in  his  Systematic 
Thcologji  (p.  532)  in  the  following  terms:  "As  the 
profession  of  a  spiritual  chang'e  already  wrought, 
baptism  is  primarih'  the  act,  not  of  the  administra- 
tor, but  of  the  person  baptized.  Upon  the  person 
newlj'  regenerate  the  command  of  Christ  first  termi- 
nates; only  upon  his  giving  evidence  of  the  change 
within  him  does  it  become  the  duty  of  the  church  to 
see  that  he  has  opportunity  to  follow  Christ  in  bap- 
tism. Since  baptism  is  primarily  the  act  of  the  con- 
vert, no  lack  of  qualification  on  the  part  of  the  ad- 
ministrator invalidates  the  baptism,  so  long  as  the 
proper  outward  act  is  performed,  with  intent  on  the 
part  of  the  person  baptized  to  express  the  fact  of  a 
preceding  spiritual  renewal."  ''If  baptism  be  pri- 
marily the  act  of  the  administrator  or  of  the  church 
then  invalidity  in  the  administrator  or  the  church 
renders  the  ordinance  itself  invalid.  But  if  bap- 
tism be  primarily  the  act  of  the  person  baptized,  an 
act  which  it  is  the  church's  business  simply  to 
scrutinize  and  further,  then  nothing  but  the  absence 
of  immersion,  or  of  an  intent  to  profess  faith  in 
Christ,  can  invalidate  the  ordinance." 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  view  have  been 
in  a  measure  stated  in  discussion  of  the  strict 
theory,  but  they  may  be  briefly  recalled  in  this  con- 
nection. The  first  objection  is  that  it  goes  against 
the  two  inferences  from  Scripture;  that  the  agent- 


THE  AGENT  IN   BAPTISM.  391 

should  be  himself  imnier.sed,  and  act  under  authority. 
So  far  as  these  inferences  are  entitled  to  any  weight, 
they  make  directly  against  the  liberal  theory. 

A  second  difficulty  is  that  this  theory  is  denomi- 
nationally inconsistent.  This  point  is  strongly 
argued  by  Porter  in  the  ^^umter  Discitssioii,  men- 
tioned above.  If  it  is  worth  while  to  contend  at  all 
for  the  Baptist  views  of  the  nature  of  a  true  church 
and  of  the  act  and  meaning  of  baptism,  it  is  worth 
while  to  contend  that  the  performance  of  the  latter 
be  committed  to  those  and  those  only  who  will  per- 
form it  in  accordance  with  those  views.  All,  ex- 
pressly or  virtually,  admit  that  this  is  ordinarily 
best.  T^et  each  denomination — Baptists  especially — 
do  its  own  baptizing  in  its  own  way;  it  is  more  fit- 
ting and  consistent  all  around.  The  completeness 
and  coherency  of  the  Baptist  system  as  a  whole  de- 
mand the  regulation  of  baptism  as  well  as  other 
parts  of  church  order.  There  is  no  propriety  nor 
need  to  send  outside  our  own  ranks  to  have  the 
Lord's  sacred  ordinances  performed  for  us  by  un- 
baptized  and  unauthorized,  or  doubtfully  authorized, 
agents. 

The  third,  and  perhaps  strongest,  objection  is  that 
this  theory  of  the  agent  does  not  sufficiently  safe- 
guard the  proper  observance  of  the  ordinance.  It 
is  too  sacred  and  important  a  matter  to  leave  to  the 
conscience  of  the  candidate  alone,  so  that  if  he  is 
satisfied  with  his  immersion  by  an  unbaptized 
person  the  Baptist  churches  ought  to  be.  As  well  say 
that  if  a  person,  who  does  not  know  any  better,  is 
satisfied  with  sprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptism 
and  refuses  to  be  immersed,  then  a  Baptist  church 


392  ordinancp:s  of  the  churches, 

ought  to  take  him  in  without  any  baptism  at  all! 
To  this  the  theory  under  review  logically  tends,  and 
some  who  call  themselves  Baptists  have  already 
reached  that  stage.  But  of  course  the  defenders  of 
this  view  are  not  ready  yet,  for  the  most  part,  to 
accept  this  outcome  of  their  opinions. 

It  remains  to  state  the  theory  which  has  been 
called  in  deference  to  those  who  hold  it,  the  con- 
servative view.  But  as  the  main  points  of  the  contro- 
versy have  all  been  exhibited,  it  will  not  be  neces- 
sary to  repeat  them  at  this  point.  SuflSce  it  to  say 
that  those  Baptists  who  defend  this  view  agree  in 
the  main  with  those  wlio  hold  the  strict  theory,  but 
not  so  confidently,  nor  for  exactly  the  same  reasons. 
They  do  not  emphasize  the  same  points  in  the  argu- 
ment, and  some  they  do  not  accede  to  at  all.  For 
example,  the  conservatives  do  not  care  for  the 
principle  of  so-called  "succession",  or  "church  perpe- 
tuity", or  think  it  necessary  to  either  side  of  the 
argument  to  put  any  stress  upon  it.  Thus  Dr.  A.  M. 
Poindexter  (quoted  in  (Sumter  Discussion,  p.  126) 
says :  "I  do  not  think  it  can  be  proven  as  yet — what- 
ever future  researches  may  bring  to  light — that  such 
a  succession  exists.  I  believe  that  in  any  case  of 
necessity,  believers  having  the  word  of  God  for  their 
guide,  may  commence  a  church  organization  and 
administration  of  ordinances,  and  that  such  church 
ordinances  would  be  valid  to  all  intents  and 
purposes."  But  to  create  such  necessity,  where  it 
does  not  exist,  would  be  irregular  and  of  question- 
able validity. 

Further,  those  of    this  way    of    thinking, — while 
most    of    them    accept    the    probabilities    of    the 


THE  AGENT  IN  BAPTISM. 


393 


Scripture  inference  in  favor  of  immersion  and 
authority  in  the  agent —put  the  stress  rather  on 
the  propriety  and  expediency  of  rejecting  all 
irregular  baptisms,  as  of  doubtful  validity.  The  best 
way  to  be  sure  about  baptism  is  to  have  it  done  by 
one  who  has  been  himself  immersed  on  profession 
of  faith,  and  acts  under  the  authority  of  a  properly 
constituted  church. 

Finally,  those  of  the  conservative  opinion  empha- 
size, where  the  strict  brethren  simply  admit,  the 
perfect  liberty  and  indispensable  duty  of  each 
church  to  settle  this  matter  according  to  its  own 
convictions  of  scriptural  requirement  and  denomi- 
national propriety.  The  question  of  receiving 
irregular  immersions  as  baptism  is  not  to  be  made 
a  test  of  denominational  fellowship.  In  case  a 
church  receives  a  member  on  an  irregular  immer- 
sion, and  gives  him  a  letter  of  dismission  to  a  church 
that  for  itself  refuses  such  immersions,  the  second 
church  should  receive  the  member  without  question ; 
leaving  the  responsibility  for  the  error  with  the 
sister  sovereign  that  has  already  passed  on  the  case. 
If  a  church  is  divided  in  sentiment,  the  nmtter  should 
be  decided  by  majority  vote  and  the  minority  acqui- 
esce; for  the  occasion  is  not  one  of  such  magnitude 
as  to  require  separation. 

How  far  it  may  be  right  to  go  in  tolerating  irregu- 
larity in  confessedly  peculiar  and  exceptional  cases 
is  always  a  difficult  question  to  determine.  And  it 
is  the  part  of  both  prudence  and  charity  to  be  not 
censorious  of  those  who  may  see  reason  to  admit 
exceptions  from  the  regular  order  where  it  seems  to 
us  best  not  to  admit  them.     On  the  other  hand,  it 


394  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

is  both  unwise  and  dangerous  to  elevate  exceptions 
into  rules,  and  to  harden  into  accepted  practice  what 
is  confessedly  a  departure  from  regularity.  T'pon 
the  whole,  the  weight  of  argument,  and  the  consis- 
tency of  Baptist  church  order  seem  to  lie  against  the 
propriety  of  accepting  any  of  these  so-called  ''alien 
immlersions."  But  where  churches  insist  upon 
receiving  them  they  have  an  undoubted  right  to  de- 
cide the  doubtful  question  for  themselves. 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM,  395 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
THE   SCRIPTURE  TEACHING. 

I.  The  Old  Testament. 

1,  In  itself;  no  light. 

(1)  No  direct  mention  of  baptism. 

(2)  No  prophecy. 

2.  In  light  of  New  Testament;  alleged. 

(1)  The  covenant  of  circumcision. 

(2)  Relation  of  church  to  children. 

II.  The  New  Testament. 

1.  Descriptions  of  the  act  of  baptism. 

(1)  John's  baptism.    All  adults. 

(2)  Christian  baptism.    All  adults. 

2.  Teaching  of  baptism. 

(1)  As  a  duty.    Implies  adults. 

(2)  As  doctrine.    Implies  adults. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


THE  SCRIPTURE  TEACHINGS. 


Who  ought  to  be  baptized?  What  must  be  the  age, 
character,  professions,  state  of  mind,  or  any  other 
qualifying  conditions  necessary  for  those  who  are  to 
receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism?  Certainly  this  is 
a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  it  has  been 
a  living  question  from  the  dawn  of  Christianity  until 
now.  The  Baptists  have  a  right  to  be  deeply 
interested  in  all  that  pertains  to  this  question;  for 
around  it  center  some  of  the  most  interesting  events 
of  their  history,  and  with  it  is  wrapped  up  one  of  the 
most  characteristic  and  distinctive  tenets  of  their 
belief.  In  the  present  chapter  we  are  to  study  the 
teachings  of  Scripture  on  the  point.  In  the  two 
following  chapters  the  question  will  be  considered 
from  the  historical  and  argumentative  point  of  view. 
The  present  treatment  is  designed  to  be  chiefly  induc- 
tive. Let  us  make  careful  and  candid  examination 
of  all  that  bears  upon  the  subject  in  the  Bible. 
Those  who  have  argued  for  and  against  infant  bap- 
tism have  thoroughly  covered  the  ground  and  drawn 
into  the  controversy  every  passage  of  Scripture  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  that  could  even  re- 
motely be  supposed  to  bear  upon  the  decision  of  the 
question. 

396 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM.  397 

Does  the  Old  Testament  give  any  light  as  to  the 
recipients  of  baptism?  This  might  seem  a  strange 
inquiry  to  make,  inasmuch  as  baptism  is  clearly  a 
New  Testament  observance  and  a  rite  distinctive  of 
the  Christian  dispensation.  The  exigencies  of  the 
controversy,  however,  have  compelled  the  advocates 
of  infant  baptism  to  resort  to  the  Old  Testament  for 
help  in  maintaining  their  theory,  and  they  thus  make 
it  incumbent  on  the  student  to  inquire  whether  the 
Old  Testament  properly  understood  sheds  any  light 
at  all  upon  the  subject.  There  are  two  ways  of  con- 
sidering the  relation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  this 
matter.  One  is.  whether  the  Old  Testament  in  itself 
gives  any  hint  as  to  baptism  and  its  recipients ;  and 
the  other  is,  whether  the  Old  Testament  as 
interpreted  by  the  New  reveals  anything  on  the  point 
in  hand. 

Looking  at  the  first  inquiry  we  should  say  that  the 
ancient  Scriptures  contain  nothing  whatever  directly 
bearing  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  There  is  no  refer- 
ence to  this  distinctive  Christian  observance.  What 
is  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  law  in  regard  to  the 
ceremonial  washings  of  the  priests  and  Levites  has 
of  course  nothing  to  do  with  Christian  baptism; 
neither  can  Naaman,  the  Syrian  leper,  be  regarded  as 
a  case  in  point,  since  his  bathing  in  the  Jordan  is  in 
no  sense  parallel  with  baptism  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation ;  nor  is  there  any  prophecy  which  fore- 
shadows or  anticipates  the  New  Testament  ordin- 
ance. For  those  sometimes  adduced  (as  Isa.  1:16; 
52:15)  are,  when  properly  understood,  wide  of  the 
mark.  But  while  this  may  be  granted,  the  question 
is  put  upon  us  whether  in  the  light  of  the  New  Testa- 


398  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

ment  the  Old  Testament  may  not  give  some  teaching 
as  to  the  proper  recipients  of  baptism.  Is  there  not 
something  which  bears  indirectly  upon  the  matter? 
The  advocates  of  Paedobaptism  have  endeavored 
very  strenuously  throughout  the  whole  controversy 
to  find  in  the  Old  Testament  some  such  allusions; 
but  the  chief  contention  is  that  baptism  has  come 
in  the  room  of  circumcision  under  the  Old  Covenant. 
So  far  as  this  is  an  argument  for  infant  baptism  it 
will  be  fully  considered  in  a  future  chapter.  We  are 
here  concerned  simply  with  the  facts.  It  is  admitted 
even  by  its  most  strenuous  supporters  to  be  only  an 
inferential  argument.  There  is  nothing  which 
directly  says  that  baptism  is  the  Christian  equivalent 
for  the  Jewish  circumcision ;  but  Paul's  remarks  in 
Col.  2:11,12  about  the  "circumcision  not  made  with 
hands,"  and  then  immediately  about  ''having  been 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  are  often  quoted  as  giv- 
ing at  least  indirect  hint  of  such  substitution.  All 
that  can  be  fairly  deduced  from  the  passage  is  that 
there  was  a  suggestion  or  association  of  ideas  in  the 
Apostle's  mind  between  the  external  rites  which  he 
mentions;  but  to  quote  this  passage  as  proof  of  an 
exact  correspondence  of  Christian  baptism  with 
Jewish  circumcision  is  taking  unwarrantable 
liberties  in  interpretation.  It  is  at  the  very  best  only 
a  remote  inference  which  connects  the  recipients  of 
baptism  under  the  new  dispensation  with  the  recipi- 
ents of  circumcision  under  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham. We  may,  therefore,  leave  the  Old  Testament 
and  turn  our  attention  to  the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament  on  the  subject. 

The  best  way  to  arrive    at  the   New    Testament 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


399 


doctrine  is  to  study  every  passage  where  baptism  is 
mentioned,  to  omit  those  in  which  there  is  no  refer- 
ence to  the  persons  baptized,  and  then  to  give  care- 
ful consideration  to  all  that  may  directly  or  remotely 
have  any  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  recipients 
of  the  ordinance.     We  may  pursue  this  inquiry  in 
two  branches  by  giving  our  attention  first  to  those 
passages  in  which  there  are  recorded  facts  in  regard 
to  the  baptized,  or  where  baptism  is  mentioned  or 
described  as  an  action ;  and  then  to  those  in  which 
baptism  is  taught  as  a  doctrine  or  enjoined  as  a  duty. 
We  proceed  then  to  consider  the  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  which  describe  baptism  as  a  fact. 
Let  us  first  notice  those  which  speak  of  John's  bap- 
tism. In  the  third  chapter  of  Luke,  there  are  parallel 
accounts    concerning    the    baptism    of    John,    and 
besides  these  a  brief  mention  in  John  3  :23.     So  far 
as  these  passages  bear  on  the  recipients  of  baptism 
all  may  be  summed  up  in  Matthew's  words (3:6)  : 
"They  were  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins.''     The  whole  description  is  such 
as  to  indicate  that  the  act  was  performed  upon  those 
of  mature  age  who  were  conscious  of    an    inward 
change  and  made  outward  profession  of  new  spirit- 
ual experiences  and  purposes.    That  this  opinion  is 
accepted  by  the  vast  majority,  if    not  all,    of    the 
commentators  and  students  is  plain  enough.    It  may 
be  well,  however,  to  quote  a  few  authorities  adduced 
by  Ingham.*    Burkitt  says :     "John  admitted  these 
persons  to  baptism  upon  their  confession  of  sin,  and 
promise  of  amendment."     Dr.  Whitby  comments  on 
Matt.  3:6:     "The  baptism  then  used  by  John  and 
*Subject8  of  Baptism,  p.  7  f. 


400  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

Christ's  disciples  was  only  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance,and  faith  in  the  Messiah  which  was  for  to  come, 
of  both  which  infants  were  incapable."  Matthew 
Henry  remarks:  "Those  who  received  his  doctrine 
and  submitted  to  his  discipline  were  baptized  of  him 
in  Jordan,  thereby  professing  their  repentance,  their 
belief  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  was  at  hand." 
Dean  Alford  in  his  comment  on  Matt.  3  :G  says : 
"  'Confessing  their  sins/ — from  the  form  of  expres- 
sion this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  merely  showing 
a  contrite  spirit,  confessing  themselves  sinners,  but 
a  particular  and  individual  confession ;  not,  however, 
made  privately  to  John,  but  before  the  people." 

A  further  reference  to  John's  baptism  is  found  in 
Luke  7 :29,  where  our  Lord  in  speaking  of  John  says : 
''And  all  the  people  when  they  heard,  and  the  publi- 
cans, justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the  baptism 
of  John."  Here  those  who  were  baptized  by  John 
are  described  as  "justifying  God,"  clearl}'  implying 
maturity  of  age  and  judgment  and  a  new  religious 
life.  Another  mention  of  John's  baptism  is  in  Acts 
11 :16,  where  Peter  in  giving  account  to  the  brethren 
at  Jerusalem  concerning  the  conversation  of  Cor- 
nelius and  his  people  says:  "And  I  remember  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed 
baptized  with  water;  but  je  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  If  then  God  gave  unto  them  the 
like  gift  as  he  did  also  unto  us,  when  we  believed  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  I,  that  I  could  with- 
stand God?  And  when  they  learned  these  things, 
the}^  held  their  peace."  Here  there  is  no  direct 
allusion  to  the  recipients  of  baptism,  but  the  implica- 
tion is,  by  way  of  parallel,  that  they  were  those  who 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OP  BAPTISM.  401 

were  capable  of  conscious  spiritual  change  and  pro- 
fession. In  Acts  13:24,  Paul  in  preaching  in  the 
synagogue  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  speaks  of  John's 
baptism  thus:  "When  John  had  first  preached 
before  his  coming  the  baptism  of  repentance  to  au 
the  people  of  Israel."  Paul  here  understands  that 
John's  baptism  was  a  baptism  which  required  repent- 
ance on  the  part  of  those  who  were  subjected  to  it; 
and  the  same  thing  appears  from  Acts  19:4,  ''And 
Paul  said,  John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance, saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should 
believe  on  him  which  should  come  after  him,"  that 
is,  on  Jesus.  Here  Paul  not  only  asserts  repentance 
as  a  condition  of  John's  baptism,  but  faith  also  in 
the  Christ  who  was  then  at  hand.  It  thus  appears 
that  all  the  passages  which  describe  the  baptism  of 
John  indicate  that  the  persons  who  received  that 
ceremony  at  his  hand  were  persons  of  sufficient 
maturity  at  least  to  undergo  the  spiritual  change 
characterized  by  repentance  and  faith,  and  to  make 
open  profession  of  the  same.  We  do  not  here  enter 
into  the  debated  question  whether  John's  baptism 
was  Christian  baptism,  but  so  far  as  the  act  and 
recipients  were  concerned  there  is  no  reason  to  con- 
sider them  essentially  different. 

We  pass  on  now  to  those  passages  which  refer  to 
Christian  baptism,  and  the  first  is  John  3 :22,  where 
it  is  said :  "After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  into  the  land  of  Judaea;  and  there  he 
tarried  with  them  and  baptized."  Here  nothing  is 
specially  said  of  the  recipients,  but  the  passage  is 
interesting  as  being  the  first  mention  in  the 
Scripture  of  our  Lord's  baptizing  and  of  his  disciples 


402  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

doing  the  same.  The  next  passage  is  more  to  our 
purpose,  John  4:1,  2:  "When  therefore  the  Lord 
knew  how  that  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus 
was  making  and  baptizing  more  disciples  than  John 
(although  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  dis- 
ciples) he  left  Judaea,  and  departed  again  into 
Galilee."  On  this  Ingham  remarks  (Subjects  of 
Bapti&m^  p.  19)  "Here  notice  three  facts:  1. 
Persons  baptized  are  desiginated  disciples.  We  never 
read  of  disciples  of  Christ  in  Holj  Writ  in  applica- 
tion to  infants,  or  in  application  to  those  who  make, 
or  have  made,  no  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  2. 
Christ  is  said  to  make  as  well  as  to  baptize  disciples. 
3.  The  record  gives  the  priority  to  the  making  of 
disciples  over  that  of  baptizing  them.  'Jesus  made 
and  baptized,'&c.  I  mention  not  this  priority  as  a 
proof,  but  simply  as  a  corroboration  of  the  truth  of 
our  sentiments.  From  the  whole  we  learn  that  this 
baptism  encourages  only  the  baptism  of  professing 
believers." 

There  are  several  descriptions  of  Christian  baptism 
in  the  Acts.  The  first  is  the  notable  passage  in 
chapter  2:41:  "They  then  that  received  his  word 
were  baptized,  and  there  were  added  unto  them  that 
day  about  three  thousand  souls."  The  record  goes 
on  to  describe  the  character  of  those  who  were  thus 
baptized,  and  says :  "And  they  continued  steadfastly 
in  the  apostles'  teaching  and  fellowship,  in  the  break- 
ing of  bread  and  the  prayers."  This  description 
certainly  indicates  that  the  recipients  of  the  ordin- 
ance were  those  who  could  believe  the  testimony  of 
the  Apostles  and  act  upon  it.  In  Acts  8:12  con- 
cerning the  results  of  Philip's  preaching  in  Samaria 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OP  BAPTISM.  403 

we  read  that  "when  they  believed  Philip  preaching 
good  tidings  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men 
and  women."  Here  they  are  described  particularly 
as  grown  people,  "men  and  women,"  and  as  having 
believed  the  good  tidings.  In  regard  to  the  baptism 
of  the  eunuch  in  the  same  chapter,  verses  30,  38, 
omitting  verse  37  as  not  genuine,  the  description  is 
such  as  to  indicate  l>elief  on  the  part  of  the  eunuch 
before  he  was  baptized.  In  Acts  9:18  we  have  the 
description  of  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  to 
this  he  himself  makes  a  touching  allusion  in  Acts 
22 :16.  Certainly  he  was  converted  and  professed  his 
faith  before  he  was  baptized.  This  is  also  true  in  the 
case  of  Cornelius  mentioned  in  the  tenth  chapter  of 
Acts,  especially  verses  44,  48,  Here  it  is  said  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  those  who  heard  the  word, 
and  they  spoke  with  tongues  and  magnified  God,  and 
then  Peter  said:  "Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we.  And  he  commanded  them 
to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  Cer- 
tainly here  faith  and  a  spiritual  change  of  a  very 
marked  sort  take  place  before  baptism  and  the  bap- 
tism was  grounded  distinctly  and  emphatically  upon 
the  reality  of  such  spiritual  renewal.  In  Acts  16 :14, 
15  we  have  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her 
household.  As  to  Lydia  the  matter  is  without  dis- 
pute, for  it  is  clear  that  she  had  received  spiritual 
renewal  before  baptism.  In  regard  to  her  house- 
hold, which  is  sometimes  assumed  to  imply  the 
probability  of  infant  baptism,  more  will  be  said 
later,  only  it  may  be  remarked  here  in  passing  that 


404  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

there  is  no  direct  mention  of  infants,  and  the  implica- 
tion from  the  general  course  of  the  narrative  is  that 
those  who  were  baptized  had  repented  and  believed. 
The  same  thing  may  be  said  concerning  the  jailer 
whose  case  is  mentioned  m  Acts  16 :33,  34.  He  and 
his  household  were  baptized,  but  it  is  distinctly  said 
that  he  ''rejoiced  with  all  his  house  having  believed 
in  God,"  and  we  safely  infer  that  those  who  were 
included  in  the  baptism  were  likewise  included  in 
the  rejoicing  and  believing.  In  Acts  18:8  we  have 
the  statement,  "And  Crispus,  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, believed  in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house;  and 
many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing  believed,  and  were 
baptized."  It  is  not  said  here  that  Crispus  was  bap- 
tized, but  Paul  mentions  the  fact  in  1  Cor.  1 :14  that 
he  himself  baptized  Crispus,  but  it  is  said  that 
all  of  Crispus'  family  believed  with  him,  and 
we  are  to  understand  of  course  either  that  those 
who  were  capable  of  believing  believed,  or  that 
all  were  so  capable.  Concerning  the  Corinthians, 
however,  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  after  hear- 
ing and  believing  they  were  baptized.  Next  we 
have  the  case  of  the  twelve  persons  men- 
tioned in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Acts  who  had 
formerly  received  John's  baptism,  but  now  it  is 
said  of  them  in  the  fifth  verse  that  "when  they  had 
heard  this,  they  were  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,"  that  is,  when  they  had  heard  Paul's 
explanation  concerning  baptism  and  its  require- 
ments. In  1  Cor.  1 :14-16  says  Paul :  "I  thank  God 
that  I  baptized  none  of  you,  save  Crispus  and  Gaius ; 
lest  any  man  should  say  that  ye  were  baptized  into 
my  name.     And  I  baptized  also  the    household  of 


THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM.  405 

Stephanas;  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized 
any  other."  Concerning  Crispus,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  it  is  said  that  he  and  his  household  believed, 
and  if  this  Gains  is  the  same  one  who  exercised 
hospitality  towards  the  saints,  and  is  mentioned 
with  commendation  both  by  Paul  and  John,  he  is 
known  to  have  been  an  earnest  believer.  In  regard 
to  the  household  of  Stephanas,  Paul  speaks  of  them 
in  1  Cor.  16  :15  as  being  ''the  first  fruits  of  Achaia, 
and  that  they  have  set  themselves  to  minister  to  the 
saints,"  where  it  is  clear  that  they  were  persons  who 
were  capable  of  service. 

These  are  all  the  descriptions  of  the  act  of  bap- 
tism that  we  find  in  the  New  Testament.  In  three 
cases  household  baptisms  are  mentioned, — Lydia,  the 
jailer  and  Stephanas.  It  will  be  shown  when  we 
come  to  consider  the  arguments  for  infant  baptism 
that  these  do  not  constitute  exceptions  to  what  all 
the  others  indicate,  viz.,  that  the  recipients  of  bap- 
tism in  every  instance  were  those  who  were  capable 
of  making,  and  did  actually  make,  profession  of 
repentance  and  faith,  or  performed  other  such 
mental  and  spiritual  actions  as  indicate  some 
maturity  of  life  and  judgment.  The  only  case 
among  all  these  where  there  is  not  something  in  the 
context  or  elsewhere  which  distinctly  implies  some 
spiritual  change  or  action  in  the  recipient  of  bap- 
tism is  that  of  the  household  of  Lydia^  On  this 
Ingham  (p.  80)  wisely  remarks:  "If  the  commission 
of  the  Saviour  could  be  construed  to  allow  of  any 
baptism  but  that  of  believers,  and  if  the  records 
respecting  the  baptized  households  of  Scripture 
supply  evidence  that  infants  and  little  children  be- 


406  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

longed  to  those  households,  something  more  plausi- 
ble than  all  now  in  existence  might  be  pleaded  in 
favor  of  the  baptizing  of  infants;  but  if  in  every 
instance  save  one  where  a  baptism  is  recorded,  the 
faith  or  professed  faith  of  the  baptized  can  be 
proved,  and  if  there  is  no  proof  in  this  one  instance 
that  any  other  than  believers  were  baptized,  it  is 
surely  fair  in  destitution  of  all  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  to  conclude  that  this  baptism  was  like  the 
rest."  So  far  then  as  appears  from  the  descriptions 
of  the  act  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  what  is 
commonly  known  as  believers'  baptism  is  substanti- 
ated by  an  exhaustive  induction  of  all  the  instances 
mentioned. 

We  pass  now  to  another  class  of  passages,  namely, 
those  in  which  baptism  is  set  forth  as  a  duty  or  doc- 
trine; and  the  first  of  these  to  be  noticed  is  the 
commission  of  our  Lord  in  Matt.  28:19:  "Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations, 
baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  command  you." 
Here  evidently  the  command  is  to  make  disciples, 
and  then  to  baptize.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  to  in- 
terpret the  baptizing  and  making  disciples  as 
simultaneous  acts,  and  if  there  were  any  compelling 
reason  why  this  should  be  done,  it  might  be  admit- 
ted, but  in  the  absence  of  any  such  reason,  the  order 
in  which  the  words  stand  must  be  accepted  as  that 
intended  by  the  Lord;  for  it  is  the  natural,  intel- 
ligible and  grammatical  order  in  which  the  actions 
described  should  come.  The  whole  order  of  thought 
is  exceedingly  instructive, — first  make  disciples,  that 


THE  RPX'IPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


40" 


is,  induce  to  repentance  and  faith,  then  baptize  upon 
a  profession  of  such  faith,  then  teach  the  baptized 
all  the  ordinances  and  commandments  of  the  Lord. 
Here  certainly  there  is  no  lack  of  clearness,  and  any 
tampering  with  this  easily  understood  arrangement 
of  the  terms  is  perilous.    We  should  compare  here 
the  account  of  the  commission  given  in  Mark  16 :16. 
Textual    critics    do    not    now    usually    admit    the 
genuineness  if  this  passage,  but  even  if  it  is  not  ac- 
cepted, it  at  least  shows  how  a  very  early  writer 
understood  the  teachings  of  our  Lord :    "He  that  be- 
lievBth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  where  belief 
is  spoken  of  as  coming  before  baptism.    Along  with 
this  we  should  notice  the  passage  in  Acts  2 :38,  where 
reter,    addressing   himself   to    those   who   had   ex- 
pressed compunction  for  their  sins,  says:    "Kepent 
ye,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins."  These 
persons  felt  conviction  of  sin,— they  were  "pricked 
in  their  hearts."    They  came  asking  what  they  must 
do,  and  Peter's  first  command  was  to  repent,  which 
of  course  here  implies  faith,  the  whole  process  of 
spiritual  renewal,  so  far  as  it  is  the  human  duty; 
and  then  to  be  baptized.     So  then  in  the  passages 
which  enjoin  baptism  as  a  duty  we  find  the  same 
thing  true  as  in  those  which  describe  it  as  an  act. 
Those  who  are  urged  to  be  baptized  are  believers, 
and  believers  only. 

Now  there  are  a  few  passages  which  speak  of 
baptism  as  a  doctrine,  or  somewhat  in  a  doctrinal 
way,  and  upon  examination  it  will  be  found  that 
these  will  support  the  induction  already  made.  In 
the  beautiful  passage  concerning  baptism  in  Rom. 


408  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

6:1-4  it  is  clearly  spoken  of  as  the  act  of  Christian 
believers  who  were  buried  with  Christ  through  their 
baptism  into  death,  and  were  raised  up  from  that 
death  that  they  might  walk  in  newness  of  life.  They 
were  united  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his  death 
that  they  might  be  also  in  that  of  his  resurrection, 
and  so  they  are  described  as  true  Christians  who 
had  submitted  to  this  ordinance  as  a  token  of  their 
new  life  and  purpose  toward  the  Lord  Jesus.  The 
same  thing  is  true  in  Col.  2:12,  where  Christians 
are  described  as  having  been  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism  and  raised  uj)  with  him  through  faith  in 
the  working  of  God.  So  is  it  with  the  difficult 
passage  in  I.  Pet.  3 :21,  where  occurs  the  language, 
"After  a  true  likeness  doth  now  save  you,  even  bap- 
tism." While  there  is  some  difficulty  in  interpreting 
the  word  "save,"  still  the  persons  involved  in  the 
baptism  and  the  saving  are  impliedly  at  least  those 
in  whom  the  spiritual  change  requisite  to  baptism 
has  occurred,  because  the  baptism  is  described  as 
"not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  fish,  but  the 
interrogation  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God." 
Evidently,  therefore,  it  is  the  act  of  one  who  is 
capable  of  repentance  and  faith. 

So  far  as  the  New  Testament  evidence  is  con- 
cerned this  survey  covers  the  ground  in  regard  to 
the  recipients  of  baptism.  Only  a  few  passages  have 
been  omitted,  which  do  not  seem  to  have  any  bear- 
ing upon  the  question.  It  may  be  asked,  Why  take 
up  all  these  passages,  as  all  will  admit  in  the  cases 
mentioned  that  there  was  believers'  baptism,  and 
nobody  denies  the  duty  of  believers'  baptism  now? 
The  answer  is  that  we  simply  wish  to  discover  from 


THE  RECiriEXTS  OF  P.Al'TISM.  409 

New  Testament  teaching  and  practice  who  are  the 
proper  recipients  of  baptism.  What  does  the  stu- 
dent of  these  passages  learn  as  to  the  age,  character 
and  profession  of  those  who  were  baptized?  In  all 
these  cases  the  onlj-  possible  exception  is  the  house- 
hold of  Lydia;  but  as  we  have  seen  this  does  not 
really  constitute  an  exception.  We  reach  the  con- 
clusion, therefore,  that  in  no  case  was  there  any 
baptism  except  of  those  who  gave  evidence  and  made 
profession  of  a  change  of  heart  and  of  repentance 
toward  God  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Be- 
sides this,  the  general  tenor  of  the  New  Testament 
teaching  and  the  character  of  the  New  Testament 
dispensation,  insisting  as  they  do  upon  individual 
spiritual  acts,  are  opposed  to  the  baptism  of  any 
others  than  those  who  are  capable  of  faith  in  the 
Lord  and  obedience  to  the  gospel  requirements.  The 
l';odoba{)tisls  admit,  of  course,  that  the  baptism  of 
believers  is  taught  in  the  New  Testament;  but  they 
assert  along  with  that  the  baptism  of  the  children 
of  believers  and  others.  In  the  light  of  the  Scrip- 
tures examined  we  have  to  say  that,  if  in  all  cases 
believers'  baptism  is  taught  and  nothing  else  is 
clearly  taught,  or  positively  enjoined,  it  is  necessary 
to  conclude  that  there  can  be  no  valid  baptism  with- 
out the  personal,  voluntary  repentance  and  faith 
of  the  recipient. 


410  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  X. 

RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
HISTORICAL  SKETCH. 

I.  The  Obscure  Period,  A.  D.  70-253. 

1.  Some  disputed  statements. 

2.  Probable  origin. 

II.  Period  of  Prevalence;  253-1523. 

1.  Cyprian  to  Peter  of  Bruys;  253-1104. 

(1)  Growth  and  prevalence. 

(2)  Some  opposition. 

2.  Petrobrusians  to  Anabaptists ;  1104-1523. 

(1)  Catholic  practice  well  established. 

(2)  Growth  of  anti-paedobaptism. 

III.  The  Anabaptist  Controversy;  1523-1689. 

1.  In  Switzerland ;  rise  and  persecution. 

2.  In  Germany  and  Holland. 

3.  In  England.    Persecution  till  1689. 

IV.  The  Modern  Situation;  1689  to  present  time. 

1.  Great    growth    of    Baptists,    and    other    op- 

ponents of  infant  baptism, 

2.  Spread  of  Baptist  principles  among  Psedo- 

baptist  denominations. 

3.  Continuance  of  Paedobaptism. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
HISTORICAL  SKETCH. 

When  we  leave  the  plain  precedents  and  declara- 
tions of  the  Scripture  and  betake  ourselves  to  his- 
tory, we  find  through  the  long  centuries  which  have 
followed  the  close  of  the  New  Testament  6anon  a 
varied  and  interesting  course  of  events  in  regard  to 
the  recipients  of  baptism.  As  we  saw  in  the  chapter 
on  the  baptismal  controversies,  this  topic  occupied 
much  attention  among  the  contestants  in  the  theo- 
logical arena.  Infant  baptism  has  not  lacked 
learned  and  earnest  investigators  on  both  sides,  who 
have  traversed  every  inch  of  ground  on  the  disputed 
field.  From  the  close  of  the  New  Testament  canon 
to  the  time  of  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage  (A.  D. 
70-253),  may  be  called  the  obscure  period  in  the 
history  of  this  subject.  From  the  time  of  Cyprian 
on  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Anabaptist  controversies 
during  the  Reformation  (A.  D.  253-1523),  may  be 
regarded  as  the  period  of  the  growth  and  general 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism.  The  stormy  epoch  of 
the  Reformation,  during  which  the  struggles  and 
persecutions  of  the  Anabaptists  took  place,  down 
to  the  Act  of  Toleration  under  William  and  Mary 
in  England,  when  persecution  of  the  Anabaptists 
ceased  (1.523-1689),  might  well  be  characterized  as 

411 


412  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  period  of  the  Anabaptist  controversy.  And  the 
modern  period  of  division  and  debate  without  per- 
secution may  be  considered  as  prevailing  from  1689 
until  the  present  time. 

We  take  up  first  the  obscure  period.  The  earliest 
undisputed  reference  to  infant  baptism  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers  is  found  in  a  letter  of 
Cyprian,  of  date  about  the  year  253.  This,  there- 
fore, is  taken  as  a  good  ending  place  for  the  obscure 
period.  In  regard  to  the  time  from  the  days  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  what  is 
to  be  said?  Evidently  infant  baptism  had  its  origin 
within  this  period;  for  we  find  it  a  well-understood 
practice,  at  least  in  North  Africa,  at  the  date  above 
given.  But  no  man  can  say  just  when,  where  or 
how  the  practice  arose;  nor  are  we  prepared  to 
affirm  just  how  widelj^  it  may  have  been  prevalent. 
On  all  these  questions  men  are  likely  to  differ  ac- 
cording as  they  favor  or  disapprove  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism.  A  leading  authority  for  Psedo- 
baptists  is  the  learned  and  useful  work  of  Wall, 
The  History  Infant  Baptism.*  Following  him  comea 
the  great  work  of  Joseph  Bingham,  commonly 
known  as  Bingham's  Antiquities.  On  the  other  side 
Gale's  Reflections  upon  Wall's  History  was  the 
work  of  a  brilliant  and  scholarly  young  Baptist 
minister.  It  subjects  Wall's  conclusions  to  a  severe 
review.  Robinson's  Historij  of  Baptism  likewise 
contains  much  that  is  useful,  and  Ingham  on  The 

*  The  edilion  used  and  quoted  in  this  discussion  is  that  of 
the  Rev.  Henry  Cotton,  which  contains,  besides  the  original 
history,  Gale's  Reflections  and  Dr.  Wall's  Defense,  published 
in  four  volumes  at  Oxford. 


INFANT  BAPTISM   IX   HISTORY.  413 

Subjects  of  Baptism  has  reviewed  with  great  force 
the  Poedobaptist  arguments  from  history.  Wall  and 
Bingham  with  their  followers  endeavored  to  show 
as  early  an  origin  for  infant  baptism  as  possible 
within  this  period,  but  some  Paedobaptist  scholars 
refuse  to  follow  these  authorities  in  their  interpre- 
tation. Among  these  may  be  reckoned  Dean  Stanley, 
who  in  his  Christian  Institutions  (pp.  23,24)  says: 
"In  the  apostolic  age  and  in  the  three  centuries 
which  followed,  it  is  evident  that  as  a  general  rule 
those  who  came  to  baptism  came  in  full  age  of  their 
own  deliberate  choice.  We  find  a  few  cases  of  the 
baptism  of  children.  In  the  third  century  we  find 
one  case  of  the  baptism  of  infants."  This  one  case 
is  doubtless  the  one  referred  to  in  the  letter  of 
Cyprian  already  mentioned.  Professor  A.  V.  G. 
Allen  {Christian  Institutions,  p.  40Gf.)  says:  ''It 
is  possible  that  infant  baptism  was  practised  to  some 
extent  from  the  first,  or  even  that  it  was  admin- 
istered by  the  Apostles.  But  there  is  no  demonstra- 
tive evidence  on  this  point  to  which  we  can  appeal. 
That  the  prevailing  custom  in  the  early  church  was 
adult  baptism  is  admitted."  The  opponents  of  in- 
fant baptism  have  little  or  no  difficulty  in  showing 
that  the  passages  from  the  Fathers  relied  on  to 
prove  the  very  early  origin  of  paedobaptism  are  at 
least  very  doubtful  for  the  practice,  if  they  may 
not  be  interpreted  as  being  against  it.  A  few  of 
these  disputed  passages  from  the  Fathers  are  now 
to  be  considered.  Bingham's  argumentf  is  about  as 
follows:  That  Clement  of  Rome  "while  he  does 
not  directly  mention  infant  baptism  yet  says  a  thing 
t  Antiq.,  b.  xi,  c.  iv,  'H  5-12. 


414  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

that  by  consequence  proves  it ;  for  he  makes  infants 
liable  to  original  sin,  which  in  effect  is  to  say  that 
they  have  need  of  baptism  to  purge  them  from  it." 
This  is  a  large  assumption,  truly.  He  brings  in  a 
similar  argument  from  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas, 
that  because  the  author  teaches  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism to  salvation,  he  therefore  teaches  infant  bap- 
tism. Again,  Bingham  argues  from  Justin  Martyr's 
saying  that  there  were  persons  in  his  time  "seventy 
years  of  age  who  had  been  disciples  from  their  in- 
fancy." But  observe  here  that  he  puts  an  interpreta- 
tion upon  Justin's  words  which  they  will  not  bear. 
Justin  says  that  these  had  been  "discipled  unto 
Christ  from  children."  The  word  used  in  the  Greek 
is  -ai<;  — the  phrase  is,  ex  -aOiuj-^ — from  the  time 
they  were  boys.  The  word,  as  is  well  known,  does 
not  mean  a  babe,  but  a  boy.  There  is  another  word, 
the  diminutive  from  the  same  root,  which  indicate* 
a  child  or  babe ;  and  besides  that,  the  expression  that 
they  were  "made  disciples  to  Christ"  involves  pre- 
vious instruction.  The  argument  is,  therefore,  over- 
strained. Bingham  further  argues  from  the  Clemen- 
tine Recognitions  (a  work  which  is  certainly  of  a 
later  date),  to  the  same  effect,  that  since  this  author 
is  "an  asserter  of  the  general  necessity  of  baptism 
to  salvation  he  must  be  an  asserter  of  infant  bap- 
tism." He  again  argues  from  Irenseus  (A.  D.  176, 
Agaitist  Heresies)  on  the  same  general  line,  namely, 
that  he  teaches  baptismal  salvation,  and  especially 
in  the  passage  where  he  speaks  of  Christ  as  being 
the  Saviour  for  all  by  having  been  himself  at  every 
age  (infanSj,  parvulus,  pncr,  juvenis),  the  Saviour  of 
all  who  are  born  again  (renascuntiir) .    This  being 


INFANT  BAPTISM  IN  HISTORY.  415 

''born  again"  he  makes  refer  to  baptism.  This  is 
possible,  but  all  scholars  do  not  agree  with  this 
interpretation,  and  it  is  a  forced  inference  to  make 
it  teach  infant  baptism.  Again,  from  the  well  known 
passage  in  Tertullian  {De  Baptismo)  Bingham,  fol- 
lowed by  Schaff,  argues  that  Tertullian  in  opposing 
paedobaptism  indicates  that  this  was  the  practice 
of  the  church,  but  most  historians  of  to-day  draw  a 
contrary  inference.  Besides,  Robinson*  shows  that 
Tertullian  was  probably  not  speaking  of  infants,  but 
of  children,  who,  he  argued,  were  too  young  to  be 
baptized.  Finally,  Bingham  quotes  several  passages 
from  Origen  in  which  that  author  is  quoted  as  say- 
ing that  infants  were  baptized,  and  that  the  church 
received  this  practice  as  a  tradition  from  the 
Apostles;  but  these  passages  are  not  found  in  the 
Greek  text  of  Origen,  but  only  in  Ruflnus'  Latin 
version.  It  is  doubtful,  therefore,  if  Origen  ever 
said  that  at  all,  and  if  he  did,  the  passages  are  not 
clear  enough  to  prove  much.  This  seems  to  be  about 
all  that  Wall  and  Bingham  are  able  to  adduce  from 
the  ancient  Fathers  prior  to  the  time  of  Cyprian. 
Their  deductions  have  been  ably  reviewed  by  Gale, 
Robinson  and  Ingham,  to  whom  the  student  is  re- 
ferred for  a  full  and  complete  discussion  of  the  mat- 
ter. Inghamf  sums  up  by  saying:  "Before  Cyprian 
we  have  evidence  that  little  children  were  baptized, 
but  no  record  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  not  a 
single  statement  from  which  the  existence  of  such 
practice  can  be  certainly  pro^^d." 

*  History  of  Baptism,  chapter  21. 
t  Subjects  of  Baptism,  p.  470. 


416  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

If  we  raise  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
practice,  it  will  be  answered  differently  according 
to  the  point  of  view.  The  advocate  of  infant  bap- 
tism will  say  that  because  it  is  found  so  early  it 
must  come  from  the  Apostles  or  from  the  apostolic 
age.  The  opponent  will  answer,  There  is  no  trace 
of  it  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  in  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian literature;  therefore,  it  must  have  originated 
later.  Both  admit  that  baptism  was  regarded  by 
the  early  Christian  Fathers  as  essential  to  salva- 
ion.  Wall  and  Bingham  argue  from  this  that  the 
Fathers  taught  and  practised  infant  baptism.* 
Other  PaedobaptistSjf  however,  consider  that  this 
belief  in  the  efficacy  of  baptism  was  the  reason, 
or  one  of  the  reasons,  for  the  origin  of  the  practice. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  older  scholars  also,|  though 
Bingham  speaks  slightingly  of  their  views.  Baptist 
writers  have  not  been  slow  to  seize  this  vantage 
ground  and  to  allege,  with  excellent  reason,  that  we 
have  in  this  early  error  as  to  the  saving  efficacy  of 
baptism  the  most  probable  source  of  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism.  The  case  is  well  put  by  Newman  :|| 
"When  Christians  had  come  to  believe  that  water 
baptism  possessed  magical  efficacy,  and  that  all  man- 

*  By  implicatioa  in  Wall's  first  pages,  and  directly  by 
Bingham  twice,  b.  11,  c.  4,  §|  6,  8. 

t  estanley.  Christian  Institutions,  p.  24,  and  Steitz  in  Her- 
zog.  Vol.  XV,  p.  222,  who  says:  "Das  Dogma  von  der  Not- 
wendigkeit  der  Taufe  zur  Seligkeit  hatte  die  Kindertaufe  zu 
seiner  unvermeidlichen  Konsequenz," — the  dogma  of  the 
necessity  of  baptism  to  salvation  had  infant  baptism  for  its 
inevitable  consequence. 

t  Salmasius  and  Suicer,  as  adduced  by  Bingham,  1.  c,  §  5. 

ll  History  of  Antipsedobaptism,  p.  8. 


TNFAXT  BAPTISM   IN  HISTORY,  417 

kind  were  so  involved  in  sin  that  no  salvation  was 
possible  apart  from  baptism,  it  was  inevitable  that 
infant  baptism  should  be  introduced.  The  wide- 
spread prevalence  of  infant  lustrations  among 
Pagans  made  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism 
easy  and  natural.  At  first  it  would  be  confined  to 
infants  in  danger  of  death;  but  when  the  idea  had 
taken  firm  hold  on  the  Christian  consciousness  that 
it  was  the  necessary  means  of  securing  cleansing 
from  hereditary  sin,  its  progress  could  not  fail  to 
be  rapid," 

We  pass  now  to  the  second  period,  that  of  the 
growth  and  prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  extending 
from  the  middle  of  the  third  century  to  the  Re- 
formation; or,  to  be  more  exact,  from  253  to  1523. 
We  may  fairly  say  that  from  the  time  of  Cyprian 
on  to  the  Reformation  the  general  practice  of  Chris- 
tians as  represented  in  the  Catholic  Church  was  that 
of  infant  baptism ;  yet  this  is  not  by  any  means  say- 
ing that  the  practice  was  universal.  Not  even  all 
Catholics,  particularly  in  the  early  part  of  this  time, 
practised  it,  and  there  was  some  opposition  to  it 
among  the  sects.  This  opposition  becomes  more 
evident  towards  the  Reformation;  and  came  to  the 
full  in  the  glorious  work  of  the  Anabaptists  of  that 
era.  We  may,  therefore,  fittingly  close  the  period 
with  the  rise  of  the  Swiss  Anabaptists  which  may  be 
taken  to  begin  about  the  year  1523.*  It  will  be 
convenient  to  subdivide  this  long  period  into  two 
shorter  ones,  taking  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
century  as  the  dividing  line,  that  is,  from  Cyprian's 
time  (253)  to  that  of  Peter  de  Bruys  (1104). 

*  Cf.  Newman,  p.  88. 


418  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

The  letter  of  Cyprian  to  Fidus,  of  date  probably 
the  year  253,  has  a  distinct  and  undisputed  reference 
to  infant  baptism.  The  letter  is  fully  quoted  by 
Wall.*  A  certain  Fidus,  otherwise  unknown,  wrote 
a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Carthage  inquiring  whether 
it  was  right  to  baptize  an  infant  before  it  was  eight 
days  old.  To  this  inquiry  Cyprian  replies  at  some 
length,  stating  that  sixty-six  bishops  in  council 
agreed  with  him  as  to  the  point  involved.  His  de- 
cision was  that  the  eight-day  requirement,  suggested 
by  the  rite  of  circumcision,  was  not  necessary  in 
the  case  of  infants,  but  the  sooner  they  were  bap- 
tized the  better.  Other  citations  from  Cyprian  are 
given  to  show  that  the  practice  was  prevalent  in  his 
time,  at  least  so  far  as  regards  North  Africa,  where 
he  lived. 

Wall  gives  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Elvira,  or 
Eliberis,  in  Spain,  about  the  year  305,  in  regard  to 
taking  back  persons  who  had  strayed  from  the 
Catholic  churches,  and  as  infants  are  mentioned  in 
this  connection,  it  is  supposed  that  they  had  been 
baptized.  The  inference,  however,  is  somewhat 
doubtful.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Council  of 
NeocfBsarea  in  314,  but  Baptist  writers  consider  this 
to  be  against  the  practice.  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
about  360,  preached  a  sermon  on  baptism  in  which 
in  several  places  he  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  infants. 
He  believed  they  should  be  baptized  in  case  of 
danger  of  death,  but  otherwise  they  would  better 
"wait  till  they  were  three  years  old,  and  could  say 
some  words  of  the  creed."  This  passage  plainly 
shows  a  transition  state — that  the  practice  w^as  not 

*Vol.  1,  page  125  f. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  IN  HISTORY.  ,     419 

fully  and  finally  settled.     This  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  we  know  of  some  who  were  children  of 
Christian  parents,  and  yet  were  not  baptized  in  in- 
fancy.    Ambrose,  Bishop  if  Milan,  mentions  in  one 
instance  parvuli  who  were  baptized,  but  this  ex- 
pression   does    not   necessarily   mean   infants.     It 
means  '^little  ones,"  and  may  be  infants  or  children 
of  a  larger  growth.    Concerning  Chrysostom,  Wallf 
says:    "As  for  the  passages  in  his  genuine  works,  he 
has  not  many  on  this  subject :  for  orators  love  only 
such  subjects  as  may  be  adorned  with  flowers  of 
rhetoric."    Still  Chrysostom's  mention  of  the  matter 
is  such  as  to  show  that  it  was  well  understood  in 
the  great  preacher's  time.    It  also  appears  from  the 
works  of  Jerome  and  Augustine  that  the  practice 
was  well  established   in  their  days,   but  was   not 
universal,  since  these  Fathers  were  not  themselves 
baptized  until  maturity  of  life.     Wall  quotes  pas- 
sages from  Bishop  Leo  I.  of  Rome,  about  440,  in 
which  the  question  concerning  those  who  had  been 
carried  away  captive  in  early  life  and  were  now  re- 
stored, is  discussed.     The  question  was  whether,  if 
they  could  not  remember  their  baptism  and  no  record 
of    it    had    been    preserved,    they    should    be    bap- 
tized.   Leo  decided  that  they  should  now  be  baptized 
lest  their  salvation  should  be  endangered  for  the  lack 
of  baptism.    This  shows  that  the  practice  was  cur- 
rent in  his  time.     ]Many  other  such  passages  have 
been  collected  by  Wall  and  others,  and  they  show 
that  infant  baptism  did  prevail  to  a  very  large  ex- 
tent through  all  this  i^eriod. 

t  Vol.  1,  page  227. 


420  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

But  was  it  universal?  Dean  Stanley*  says: 
"Even  amongst  Christian  households  the  instances 
of  Chrysostom,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Basil,  Ephrem 
of  Edessa,  Augustine,  Ambrose,  are  decisive  proofs 
that  it  was  not  only  not  obligatory  but  not  usual. 
All  these  distinguished  personages  had  Christian 
parents  and  yet  were  not  baptized  until  they  reached 
maturity."  Wall's  labored  attempt  to  break  the  force 
of  this  point  is  not  successful. 

Were  there  not  also  some  sects  during  this  time 
who  opposed  infant  baptism?  This  is  a  difficult 
question.  Wall  denies  that  the  Donatists,  Pauli- 
cians,  and  others  opposed  infant  baptism.  Newmanf 
admits  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  any  of 
these  mediseval  sects  before  the  twelfth  century  op- 
posed infant  baptism.  Other  Baptist  writers,  how- 
ever, find  more  or  less  of  resemblance  to  Baptist 
principles  among  them,  including  opposition  to  in- 
fant baptism. t  Concerning  the  Donatists  Newman 
says :  "The  Donatists  seem  to  have  laid  even  greater 
stress  than  did  the  Catholics  of  the  time  on  infant 
baptism;  and  so  intense  was  their  belief  in  the  neces- 
sity of  baptism  to  salvation  that  in  their  view  Christ 
himself  needed  to  be  baptized  in  order  to  secure  the 
remission  of  hereditary  sins."  He  further  thinks 
that  while  Vigilantius  was  more  evangelical  than 
the  Donatists,  he  too,  did  not  reject  infant  baptism, 
and  this  was  also  the  case  with  the  British,  Irish 
and  Scotch  evangelical  movements  within  this 
period.     We  may  say,  therefore,  that  between  the 

*  Christian  Institulions,  p.  24. 

t  Page  18  f. 

X  As  Cramp,  Jarrel,  Armitage  and  others. 


INFANT  I'.Al'TISM    IN   HISTORY.  421 

fifth  and  the  twelfth  centuries  the  evidence  for  the 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism  is  very  strong,  while 
that  for  the  existence  of  any  who  opposed  the 
practice  is  confessedly  scanty,  if  it  is  to  be  found 
at  all.  Yet  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  even  in  such 
dark  times  there  were  none  to  uphold  the  true  scrip- 
tural doctrine  on  this  point ;  while  the  rise  of  oppo- 
sition to  infant  baptism  in  the  early  part  of  the 
twelfth  century  seems  presumptive  evidence  that, 
though  the  opposition  was  weak  and  unrecorded,  it 
had  not  wholly  died  out;  for  Newman  himself  says 
(p.  34)  :  "It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  no  evan- 
gelical life  existed  in  Southern  France  before  the 
appearance  of  Peter,"  that  is,  Peter  de  Bruys.  He 
goes  on  to  mention  some  similar  movements  to  that 
of  Peter  which  broke  out  about  this  time  in  another 
part  of  France,  in  the  Netherlands,  and  in  the  Rhine 
Provinces.  It  is  difificult  to  account  for  this  sudden 
rise  of  Antipsedobaptism  in  several  different  quarters 
unless  there  had  been  something  to  prepare  the 
way  for  it. 

But  leaving  this  doubtful  time,  we  come  now  to 
the  twelfth  century,  and  take  up  the  period  from  the 
rise  of  the  Petrobrusians  in  1104  to  that  of  the  Swiss 
Anabaptists  about  the  year  1523. 

Whatever  uncertainties  may  encompass  the  age 
before  the  twelfth  century  we  have  definite  and  un- 
mistakable evidence  of  the  rejection  of  infant  bap- 
tism by  many  from  this  time  on.  The  practice  of  the 
Roman  Church  may  be  regarded  as  finally  settled; 
and  it  is  not  necessary  to  claim  that  all  the  heretics 
who,  for  one  cause  or  another,  opposed  Rome  in  this 
time,  rejected  the  article  of  her  creed  which  relates 


422  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

to  infant  baptism.  But  admitting  infant  baptism 
to  be  the  general  practice,  we  must  take  account  of 
the  growing  and  formidable  opposition  to  it,  based  on 
the  Word  of  God,  which  we  meet  from  the  twelfth 
century  forward.  In  1104  Peter  de  Bruys  appeared 
in  Southern  France,  near  the  borders  of  Switzer- 
land. He  preached  pure  evangelical  doctrine,  and 
opposed  infant  baptism.  About  the  same  time  came 
also  Henry  of  Lausanne,  in  Switzerland,  near  the 
scene  of  Peter's  work.  He  was  no  doubt  a  disciple 
of  Peter.  This  man  had  a  large  following  and  ex- 
cited the  hostility  of  the  Roman  authorities.  Con- 
cerning Peter,  Wall  writes:*  "Then  at  the  year 
1146,  Peter,  abbot  of  Clugny,  writing  against  one 
Peter  Bruis  and  one  Henry,  his  disciple,  and  their 
associates  charges  them  with  six  errors :  the  first  of 
which  was  their  denial  of  infant  baptism."  Again 
(p.  273)  he  says:  "I  take  this  Peter  Bruis  (or  Bruce 
perhaps  his  name  was)  and  Henry  to  be  the  first 
Antipsedobaptist  preachers  that  ever  set  up  a  church 
or  society  of  men  holding  that  opinion  against  in- 
fant baptism,  and  rebaptized  such  as  had  been  bap- 
tized in  infancy."  He  then  proceeds  in  a  slighting 
way  to  give  the  history  of  them,  so  far  as  it  has  been 
recorded.  It  is  thus  clear  that  these  two  men  and 
their  followers  preached  the  pure  gospel,  rejected 
infant  baptism,  and  set  up  churches.  Contemporary 
with  these,  Newman,  mentions  a  reformer  named 
Tanchelm  who  worked  in  the  Netherlands;  also  one 
Eudo,  who  labored  in  the  French  province  of  Breton ; 
also  a  similar  movement  in  the  Rhine  Provinces ; 
also  the  career  of  Arnold  of  Brescia  in  North  Italy. 

*  Vol.  ii,  p.  256. 


INFANT  BArTlSM   IN   HISTORY,  423 

It  is  probable  that  all  these  rejected  infant  baptism, 
and  that  they  had  a  considerable  following  among 
the  people,  though  they  were  persecuted  by  the 
Roman  Catholics.  Newman  devotes  a  chapter  to  the 
Waldenses  and  related  parties.  From  all  accounts 
it  appears  that  there  were  differences  among  them 
at  different  times  and  places  in  regard  to  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism — some  rejected  it  and  some 
practised  it.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  other 
sects  and  reformers — they  were  not  quite  clear  in 
their  practice.  In  regard  to  the  state  of  things  in 
the  British  Isles,  Newman  says  (p.55)  :  "Lollardism 
was  the  forerunner  of  all  that  was  best  in  the 
English  Puritanism,  from  which,  in  an  important 
sense,  modern  Baptists  have  derived  their  origin. 
But  we  have  searched  in  vain  for  any  satisfactory 
proof  that  it  embodies  distinctively  Baptist  prin- 
ciples and  practices.  We  find  views  of  truth  that 
would  seem  logically  to  involve  the  Baptist  position, 
but  alas !  men  are  not  always  logical.  It  is  possible, 
nay,  probable,  that  some  of  the  mediaeval  British 
evangelicals  rejected  infant  baptism  and  insisted  on 
believers'  baptism,  but  adequate  proof  has  not  yet 
been  presented." 

These  various  movements  prepared  the  way  for 
the  powerful  influence  of  the  Anabaptists  about  the 
Reformation.  Among  the  people,  in  various  lands, 
there  was  the  preparation  of  evangelical  thinking 
and  practice,  and  when  once  the  opposition  to  Rome 
became  pronounced  and  irrevocable  these  sentiments 
found  bold  expression  and  a  large  following  in  the 
much  maligned  but  glorious  work  of  the  Anabaptists 
of  the  Reformation. 


424  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

This  brings  us,  then,  to  consider  the  period  of  the 
Anabaptist  controversy,  which  may  be  estimated  to 
extend  from  the  beginning  of  the  Swiss  Anabaptist 
movement,  about  the  year  1523,  and  to  conclude  with 
the  adoption  of  the  Act  of  Toleration  under  William 
and  Mary  in  16S9.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  so 
great  a  movement  as  the  Reformation  would  be  ac- 
companied by  errors  and  excesses  such  as  those 
which  occured  at  Zwickau  under  the  leadership  of 
Thomas  Muenzer  and  Nicholas  Storch,  together  with 
the  horrors  of  the  Peasants'  War.  It  is  not  fair  to 
hold  the  Anabaptists  responsible  for  either  of  these 
movements,  and  the  follies  of  the  Zwickau  prophets 
ought  not  to  be  charged  to  the  principles  and  per- 
sons represented  in  the  uprising  of  the  peasantry. 
Probably  some  Anabaptists  were  concerned  in  both 
movements,  but  their  leaders  were  not,  nor  can  they 
as  a  body  be  held  .justly  responsible  for  these  irregu- 
larities. Neither  Muenzer  nor  Storch  was,  properly 
speaking  an  Anabaptist  at  all.  Newman  says  (p. 
88)  :  "A  radical  movement  of  a  widely  different 
type  we  meet  in  Switzerland  from  1523  onward." 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  Anabaptist  controversy 
in  that  country.  It  will  be  proper  to  consider  briefly 
the  progress  of  the  Anabaptists  in  Switzerland,  in 
Germany  and  Holland,  and  in  England. 

We  accordingly  begin  with  the  movement  in 
Switzerland.  Balthasar  Huebmaier  was  pastor  in 
the  German  town  of  Waldshut,  then  belonging  to 
the  Austrian  province  just  across  the  Rhine  from 
the  Canton  of  Aargau  in  Switzerland,  and  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Schafifhausen  and  Zurich.  Huebmaier 
was  a  man  of  excellent  learning,  with  clear  percep- 


INFANT  BAPTISM   IN   HISTORY.  425 

tious  of  Scripture  teaching,  and  ready  and  formi- 
dable in  debate.  He  had  disputations  on  the  sub- 
ject of  infant  baptism  with  Zwingli  in  May  and  Oc- 
tober of  1528.  Associated  with  Huebniaier  were  Con- 
rad Grebel,  Felix  Mantz  and  others.  These  were 
men  of  education,  ability,  zeal  and  piety.  They 
clearly  saw  that  the  Scriptures  contained  no  war- 
rant for  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  and  by  teach- 
ing among  the  people  and  debating  with  the  leaders 
of  the  Reformation  in  Switzerland  they  endeavored 
in  the  fear  of  God  to  set  forth  the  New  Testament 
truth  on  this  subject.  For  a  time  they  had  great 
success.  Multitudes  of  people  were  led  to  embrace 
views  in  opposition  to  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism. Zwingli,  however,  and  the  secular  authorities 
became  alarmed  at  the  growth  of  the  Anabaptists' 
principles,  especially  as,  among  some  of  them,  these 
w^ere  associated  with  what  they  considered  radical 
and  dangerous  political  measures,  and  like  Luther, 
Zwingli  drew  back.  At  first  he  came  very  near  ac- 
cepting the  Anabaptist  position,  admitting  that 
there  was  no  suflScient  Scripture  for  infant  bap- 
tism; but  he  was  as  much  of  a  political  as  religious 
reformer,  and  fearing  for  the  foundations  of  good 
order  if  the  Reformation  went  too  fast,  he  began  to 
look  for  Scripture  justification  of  infant  baptism, 
finding  it,  as  Pa^dobaptists  have  ever  since  done,  in 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  in  the  household  bap- 
tisms mentioned  in  the  book  of  Acts.  Difiference  led 
to  disputation,  disputation  to  feeling,  and  feeling  to 
persecution.  When  Zwingli  and  the  secular  authori- 
ties came  out  in  opposition,  persecution  of  the  Ana- 
baptists  began,    and   they    henceforth   encountered 


426  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

overwhelming  difiSculties.  They  were  hunted,  im- 
prisoned, almost  starved,  and  some  of  them,  even 
women,  were  drowned.  The  persecution  had  it3  de- 
sired effect.  The  movement  was  stamped  out  in 
Switzerland.  It  is  regrettable  to  say  that  Huebmaier 
in  a  moment  of  weakness  recanted,  and  was  spared 
at  this  time  only  to  suffer  martyrdom  under  new 
circumstances  and  in  a  new  place  at  a  later  time. 
As  is  the  case  so  often  in  persecution,  the  persecuted 
sect  dispersed,  and  scattered  their  views  abroad,  and 
it  was  as  true  of  the  Swiss  Anabaptists  as  of  the 
martyrs  of  the  early  days  that  their  blood  was  the 
seed  of  the  church.  We  cannot  here  trace  the 
progress  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the  rest  of  Europe. 
Some  were  found  even  in  Poland  and  in  Italy,  but 
it  is  necessary  to  take  note  of  the  extension  of  the 
movement  in  Germany  and  Holland. 

The  influence  of  Huebmaier  and  of  the  other  Swiss 
Anabaptists  was  profound.  The  leaven  spread  inta 
Silesia  and  the  Tyrol,  to  some  extent  in  Austria,  in 
Bohemia  and  Moravia  and  others  of  the  German 
provinces.  On  his  banishment  from  Waldshut, 
Huebmaier  went  to  Moravia,  where  he  did  a  noble 
work  and  spread  the  gospel  as  he  understood  it  with 
zeal.  He  was  detained  in  prison  for  a  long  time 
and  was  then  martyred  by  burning  at  Vienna,  in 
March,  1528.  His  motto  was :  "Truth  is  immortal." 
His  name  should  live  among  all  who  love  the  truth 
of  God  and  detest  persecution. 

The  Anabaptists  were  charged  with  the  excesses 
of  the  *'mad  men  of  Muenster"  under  John  of  Leyden 
and  his  associates.  As  in  the  case  of  Muenzer,  this 
was  an  unjust  accusation,  though  no  doubt  some  per- 


INFANT  FAPTISM   IN   HISTORY.  427 

sons  who  held  Anabaptist  views  were  mixed  up  with 
the  Muenster  affair.  Professor  Vedder.  in  his  ^Short 
History  of  the  Baptists,  quotes  the  striking  testi- 
mony of  Fnesslin,  an  impartial  German  scholar,  who 
speaking  of  the  Anabaptists  says:  "There  were 
those  among  them  who  held  strange  doctrines,  but 
this  cannot  be  said  of  the  whole  sect.  If  we  should 
attribute  to  every  sect  whatever  senseless  doctrines 
two  or  three  fanciful  fellows  have  taught,  there  is  no 
one  in  the  world  to  whom  we  could  not  ascribe  the 
most  abominable  errors."  There  were  in  Moravia 
about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  seventy 
Anabaptist  churches.  They  had  spread  into  other 
provinces  also,  and  were  men  much  esteemed  for 
their  character  and  good  works.  "Fifty  years  later, 
however,  persecution  had  done  its  work  only  too 
well,  and  early  in  the  seventeenth  century  we  find 
the  Anabaptists  disappear  from  the  history  of  Ger- 
many." , 

In  Holland,  however,  the  case  was  somewhat  dif- 
ferent. Under  the  wise  and  mild  leadership  of 
Menno  Simons,  who  labored  chiefly  in  Friesland 
and  the  adjoining  regions,the  Anabaptists  of  Hol- 
land flourished,  though  often  persecuted.  Menno 
differed  widely  in  character  from  the  German 
fanatics  of  his  neighborhood.  He  had  no  complicity 
whatever  with  the  Muenster  doings,  and  yet  even  in 
Holland  his  people  were  persecuted.  From  other 
countries  they  came  into  Holland,  and  from  Holland 
some  went  over  into  England.  There  must  have 
been  considerable  interchange  of  movement  among 
them.    Persecution  abounded  everywhere. 

Turning  our  attention  now  to  England  we  find  that 


428  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

at  an  early  date  Anabaptists  appear  there.  Wall* 
quotes  from  a  quaint  old  chronicler  the  following 
language  concerning  the  time  of  Edward  VI. :  "At 
the  same  time  the  Anabaptists,  who  had  kept  them- 
selves unto  themselves  in  the  late  King's  time 
[Henry  VIII.],  began  to  look  abroad  and  to  dis- 
perse their  dotages;  for  the  preventing  of  which 
mischief  before  it  grew  unto  a  head,  some  of  the 
chiefs  of  them  were  couvented."  Wall  also  men- 
tions (p.  314)  that  about  the  sixteenth  year  of 
Queen  Elizabeth  a  congregation  of  Dutch  Antipsedo- 
baptists  was  discovered  without  Aldgate  in  London, 
twenty-seven  of  whom  were  taken  and  imprisoned, 
and  two  were  burned  at  l!?mithfield.  The  celebrated 
Foxe,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Martyrs,  interceded 
with  the  Queen  to  spare  the  lives  of  these  two  and 
not  disgrace  Protestantism  by  burning  them,  but 
Elizabeth  was  determined  to  stamp  out  the  Ana- 
baptist heresy.  Wall  further  adds  (p.  315)  :  "At 
what  time  it  began  to  be  embraced  by  any  English, 
I  do  not  find  it  easy  to  discover.  But  it  is  plain  that 
no  very  considerable  number  in  England  were  of 
this  persuasion  till  about  sixty  years  ago."  From 
the  time  of  Wall's  writing  this  would  bring  the  date 
back  to  about  1640. 

The  Anabaptists  had  great  growth  during  Crom- 
well's time.  The  same  author  mentions  that  in  his 
time  "this  opinion  increased  mightily;  many  own- 
ing it  out  of  conscience  (we  must  in  charity  judge) 
as  thinking  it  to  be  the  truth;  but  many  also  for 
advantage."  He  goes  on  further  to  say  that  the 
number  of  Anabaptists  had  considerably  increased 

«  Vol.  ii.,p.311. 


INFANT  P.-VrXISM   IN   HISTORY.  429 

about  the  time  of  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.,  but 
that  on  the  settinfj  up  again  of  the  Eng;lisli  Church, 
numbers  who  had  restrained  their  chilaren  from  bap- 
tism brought  them  now  to  the  churches  to  be  bap- 
tized. 

Some  Anabaptists  from  Holland  early  in  the  six- 
teenth century  made  their  way  to  England,  and  at 
the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  (ICll)  we 
find  a  church  in  London  which  opposed  infant  bap- 
tism. This  church  is  sometimes  considered  to  have 
been  a  regular  Baptist  church,  but  there  is  some 
doubt  of  its  full  acceptance  of  all  the  principles 
which  Baptists  now  hold.  The  sentiment  grew,  how- 
ever, until  in  1644  there  were  seven  Baptist  churches 
in  and  near  London;  and  in  1689,  as  was  mentioned 
in  a  former  chapter,  one  hundred  churches  were 
represented  in  the  assembly  which  put  forth  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  During  all  this  time  they  suf- 
fered great  persecutions  in  England. 

Cromwell  protected  the  Baptists.  He  was  himself 
an  Independent  in  his  religious  views,  favoring 
neither  episcopacy  nor  presbytery.  Among  his  of- 
ficers there  were  Baptists.  Some  of  his  views,  how- 
ever, were  distasteful  to  many  of  that  body,  and 
while  he  did  not  persecute  or  allow  others  to  perse- 
cute them,  they  were  not  always  in  favor.  They  were 
again  persecuted  both  under  Charles  11.  and  James 
11.  After  the  Revolution  of  1688,  the  dethronement 
and  banishment  of  James  and  accession  of  William 
and  Mary,  in  the  next  jear  (1689),  under  the  Act  of 
Toleration,  religious  persecution  ceased  in  England. 
This  may,  therefore,  be  taken  as  an  appropriate  close 
for  the  period  of  the  Anabaptist  controversy. 


430  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

The  last  period  proposed  for  this  discussion  might 
be  characterized  as  "the  modern  situation/'  extend- 
ing from  the  year  1689  to  the  present  time. 
Macaulay*  gives  a  full  and  interesting  account  of 
the  famous  Act  of  Toleration.  He  shows  that, 
while  the  severe  statutes  passed  from  the  accession 
of  Elizabeth  to  the  Revolution  w^ere  not  repealed, 
they  were  considerably  relaxed.  "It  was  provided 
that  every  dissenting  minister  should,  before  he  ex- 
ercised the  function,  profess  under  his  hand  his  belief 
in  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  with  a 
few  exceptions.  The  propositions  to  which  he  was 
not  required  to  assent  were  these:  that  the  Church 
lias  power  to  regulate  ceremonies ;  that  the  doctrines 
set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Homilies  are  sound;  and 
that  there  is  nothing  superstitious  or  idolatrous  in 
the  ordination  service.  If  he  declared  himself  a 
Baptist,  he  was  also  excused  from  affirming  that  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  a  laudable  practice.  But,  un- 
less his  conscience  suffered  him  to  subscribe  thirty- 
four  of  the  thirty-nine  Articles,  and  the  greater  part 
of  two  other  Articles,  he  could  not  preach  without 
incurring  all  the  punishments  which  the  Cavaliers, 
in  the  day  of  their  power  and  their  vengeance,  had 
devised  for  the  tormenting  and  ruining  of  schis- 
matical  teachers."  Many  Baptists  could  without 
scruple  sign  the  thirty-nine  Articles  with  the  excep- 
tion of  four  or  five,  because  they  are  notoriously 
Calvinistic  in  tone,  and  almost  any  evangelical  min- 
ister might  sign  them.  Of  course  a  Baptist  would 
make  exception  with  reference  to  the  doctrines  con- 

*  In  the  eleventQ  chapter  of  his  History  of  England,  Har- 
pers' Edition,  Vol.  iii,  p.  74  f. 


INFANT  BAPTISM   IN  HISTORY.  431 

■ning  the  church  and  the  ordinances — the  rest  he 
lid  swallow.  In  this  way  the  Baptists  finally 
ured  toleration  in  England. 

[jet  us  notice  now  the  growth  of  the  Baptists  since 
;  Act  of  Toleration.  Vedder  says  that  they  did 
t  grow  as  fast  after  persecution  ceased  as  before; 
it  they  could  not  stand  prosperity  as  well  as  ad- 
'sity,  but  still  they  grew  in  England,  and  to  some 
:ent  in  other  lands  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
^enteenth  and  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
'ies.  But  their  most  marvelous  growth  has  been 
our  own  liberty-loving  land  since  the  War  of  Inde- 
Qdence.  They  have  grown  to  be  a  great  people  in 
s  country,  and  have  extended  their  principles  far 
d  wide.  Other  and  similar  sects  derived  from,  or 
in  to,  the  Baptists  have  also  spread  here,  and  the 
mber  of  bodies  of  Christians  professing  Anti- 
dobaptist  sentiments  is  considerable.  Through 
?ir  missionary  operations  at  home  and  abroad 
3y  have  extended  these  sentiments  over  the  wide 
trld,  and  in  all  lands  to-day  the  principle  of  be- 
vers'  baptism  is  not  without  advocacy.  Scarcely 
ything  in  the  spread  of  religious  views  is  more 
uarkable  than  the  triumphant  extension,  since  the 
)se  of  the  Anabaptist  persecutions,  of  the  prin- 
)Ies  for  which  many  of  those  noble  people  suffered 
d  died. 

Besides  the  remarkable  growth  of  the  Baptists 
d  other  bodies  which  deny  Pjedobaptism,  we 
ould  also  take  account  of  the  extension  of  these 
inciples  among  denominations  professedly  Paedo- 
ptist.  Man}'  members  of  Paedobaptist  churches, 
ding  no  Scripture  for  infant  baptism,  refuse  or 


432  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

neglect  to  have  their  children  sprinkled.  Statistics 
are  hard  to  get  and  are  to  some  extent  unreliable, 
and  it  would  not  be  just  to  claim  too  much.  Still, 
unless  observation  is  wonderfully  at  fault,  the  facts 
are  as  stated.  By  family  ties,  mistaken  opposition 
to  "Baptist  bigotry"  and  "close  communion,"  per- 
sons who  really  hold  Baptist  sentiments  often  prefer 
to  remain  in  the  Paedobaptist  denominations.  More 
than  forty  years  ago  the  Rev.  Thomas  F.  Curtis 
published  his  notable  book  on  the  Progress  of  Bap- 
tist Principles,  and  he  pointed  out  even  then  a 
marked  decline  in  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
among  the  Paedobaptist  denominations  in  this  coun- 
try. Ministters  and  assemblies  of  thei  various 
churches  took  notice  of  this  falling  off  and  endeav- 
ored to  stir  up  their  people  to  continue  in  the  ways 
of  their  fathers.  The  Episcopal  and  Lutheran 
churches  have  perhaps  maintained  the  practice  with 
more  tenacity  than  the  Presbyterians,  Methodists 
and  Congregationalists. 

In  1882  Mr.,  now  Professor,  H.  C.  Vedder,  pub- 
lished in  the  Baptist  Review  an  article  in  which  he 
showed  that  in  the  fifty  years  previous  the  propor- 
tion of  infant  baptisms  to  communicants  among  the 
Episcopalians  of  this  country  had  decreased  from 
one  in  seven  to  one  in  eleven ;  among  the  Reformed, 
from  one  in  twelve  to  one  in  twenty;  among  the 
Prsbyterians,  from  one  in  fifteen  to  one  in  thirty- 
three;  among  the  Methodists,  from  one  in  twenty- 
two  to  one  in  twenty-nine;  among  the  Congrega- 
tionalists, from  one  in  fifty  to  one  in  seventy-seven.* 
There  is  no  doubt  still  further  decline  in  the 
*  See  Strong's  Systematic  Theology,  p.  537. 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  433 

practice.    Attentiou  is  often  called  to  it  in  the  Paido- 
baptist  papers. 

Let  us  notice  in  conclusion  the  continuance  of 
PaBdobaptism.  Though  the  Baptists  and  their  views 
have  had  a  great  growth  in  the  last  two  hundred 
years,  yet  it  is  still  true  that  the  number  of  those 
who  practise  infant  baptism  is  enormously  great. 
The  ancient  churches,  both  the  Greek  and  the 
Roman,  still  observe  the  rite,  believing  that  baptism 
is  essential  to  salvation,  and  that  infants  ought  to 
receive  it.  State  churches  in  Germany  and  England 
maintain  the  practice  with  all  the  power  which  these 
organizations  have,  and  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic 
churches  in  Europe  have  also  continued  with  great 
conservatism  to  observe  the  baptism  of  infants.  In 
this  country  also  Protestant  P^edobaptists  abound. 
The  Congrcgationalists  fail  to  cast  off  this  error, 
though  many  of  their  people  do  not  practise  it.  The 
Episcopalians  and  Methodists  brought  it  from  the 
Church  of  England,  endeared  by  the  tenderest  as- 
sociations, and  the  sturdy  Presbyterian  stock, 
mostly  from  Scotland,  where  the  hard-headed  John 
Knox  had  deeply  impressed  the  views  which  he  had 
received  from  Calvin,  have  maintained  their  tradi- 
tional practice  with  great  tenacity.  The  Lutherans, 
who  have  come  over  in  large  numl)ers  from  the 
Fatherland,  ha\-e  come  thoroughly  imbued  with  the 
custom  which  prevailed  in  their  old  home.  It  has 
been,  and  is  still,  argued  with  great  learning  and 
ability  by  Piedobaptist  preachers  and  theological 
professors,  and  although  many  of  these  admit  the 
inadequacy  of  the  Scripture  proof,  yet  so  strong  is 
the  influence  of  association  and  tradition  that  they 


434  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

have  been  led  to  defend  and  retain  the  doctrine.  It 
is  really  wonderful  how  an  error  so  often  exposed, 
and  so  utterly  unfounded  in  Scripture  and  reason, 
should  be  so  persistent. 


ARGUMENTS  OX  INFANT  r.AI'TISM.  435 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XI. 

ARGUMENTS   FOR   AND   AGAINST   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

I.  Arguments  for  Infant  Baptism. 

1.  From  Scripture. 

(1)  The  covenant  of  circumcision. 

(2)  Household  baptisms. 

(3)  Relation  of  the  church  to  children. 

2.  From  history. 

(1)  Early  rise. 

(2)  Long  continuance. 

3.  From  church  authority. 

4.  From  the  efficacy  of  baptism. 

5.  From  established  custom. 

6.  From  sentiment. 

II.  Arguments  against  Infant  Baptism. 

1.  Xot  proven  by  its  advocates. 

(1)  Proof  inadequate. 

(2)  Disagreements  among  advocates. 

2.  Unsupported  by  Scripture. 

(1)  Unscriptural. 

(2)  Anti-scriptural. 

3.  Objectionable  on  other  grounds. 

(1)  Lowers  the  authority  of  Scripture. 

(2)  Fosters  other  errors  about  baptism. 

(3)  Weakens  distinction  between  church  and 

world. 

(4)  Makes     improper     distinction     between 

church  members  and  communicants. 

(5)  Helps  the  error  of  church  and  state. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  RECIPIENTS  OF  BAPTISM. 
ARGUMENTS   FOR   AND   AGAINST   INFANT   BAPTISM. 

Having  studied  the  Scripture  teachiugs  as  to  the 
recipients  of  baptism,  and  having  followed  through 
history  the  progress  of  Christian  opinion  and  prac- 
tice regarding  this  matter,  we  are  now  prepared  to 
give  specific  attention  to  the  arguments  which  are 
commonly  advanced  for  and  against  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  phenomena  in  the 
history  of  this  controversy  is  the  diversity  which 
exists  among  Pnedobaptists  themselves  as  to  the 
grounds  and  defences  of  their  position.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  a  Baptist  to  overhear,  being  himself 
only  a  spectator  and  not  a  participant,  a  symposium 
on  infant  baptism  between  well-informed  disputants 
i-epresenting,  respectively,  the  Romanists,  the  Epis- 
copalians, the  Presbyterians,  the  Congregationalists, 
the  Lutherans  and  the  Methodists.  The  listener 
would  be  surprised,  and  if  the  matter  were  not  so 
serious,  amused,  by  the  inconsistent  and  even  con- 
tradictory grounds  upon  which  the  practice  com- 
mon to  all  these  was  based  and  defended;  yet  they 
would  sometimes  use  each  other's  arguments.  The 
Catholic  defender  of  church  authority  would  bor- 
row the  Lutheran  argument  from  sentiment,  and 

436 


AUGrMENTS  OX   IXFAXT  r.AI'TISM.  437 

the  Methodist  would  joyfully  appropriate  the  Cal- 
vinistie  view  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  so  far  as 
it  suited  his  purpose.  In  such  a  confusion  exact 
classification  of  the  arguments  is  difficult,  but  we 
may  describe  them  according  as  they  are  drawn  from 
Scripture,  from  history,  from  Church  authority, 
from  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  from  custom,  and  from 
sentiment.* 

The  argument  from  Scripture  is  usually  presented 
by  the  advocates  of  the  practice  in  a  three-fold  form, 
viz.,  the  Abrahamic  covenant  of  circumcision,  the 
household  baptisms,  and  the  relation  of  the  church  to 
the  children  of  believers  and  others.  We  accordingly 
take  up  first  the  argument  from  the  covenant  of 
circumcision.  It  will  be  impossible  here  to  discuss 
this  argument  in  all  its  details.  A  summary  of  it  is 
presented  from  the  Presbyterian  point  of  view  by 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge. f  It  will  be  well  to  state  the 
argument  exactly  in  Dr.  Hodge's  words,  by  quoting 
the  headings  or  propositions  under  which  it  is  more 
fully  unfolded.  Before  stating  his  propositions, 
he  says:  *'In  order  to  justify  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, we  must  attain  and  authenticate  such  an  idea 
of  the  church  as  that  it  shall  include  the  children  of 

*  The  arguments  for  infant  baptism  have  been  very  satis- 
factorily reviewd  by  many  Baptists,  both  English  and  Am- 
erican. One  of  the  best  discussions,  both  for  candor  and  abil- 
ity, is  that  given  by  Dr.  John  L.  Dagg  in  his  Church  Order, 
p.  144  f.  There  is  also  the  outline  of  an  excellent  discussion 
in  Dr.  A.  H.  Strong's  Theology,  p.  534  f.  The  exhaustive  and 
able  work  of  Ingham  on  the  Subjects  of  Baptism  has  already 
been  often  noticed.  One  of  the  clearest  and  best  discussions 
is  given  by  Dr.  W.  C.  Wilkinson — The  Baptist  Principle. 

t  Systematic  Theology;  Vol.  III.,  p.  547. 


438  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

believing  parents."  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  re- 
mark that  thus  the  distinguished  author  begins  by 
begging  the  question,  and  it  may  also  be  said  that 
Paedobaptists  have  no  trouble  in  "attaining"  this 
idea ;  the  trouble  with  them  is  to  "authenticate"  it. 
We  shall  follow  the  great  theologian,  then,  in  his 
endeavor  to  authenticate  what  he  has  already  at- 
tained. His  propositions  are  as  follows:  "(1) 
The  visible  church  is  a  divine  institution.  (2)  The 
visible  church  does  not  consist  exclusively  of  the  re- 
generate. (3)  The  commonwealth  of  Israel  was  the 
church,  (4)  The  church  under  the  new  dispensation 
is  identical  with  that  under  the  old.  (5)  The  terms 
of  admission  into  the  church  before  the  advent  were 
the  same  that  are  required  for  admission  into  the 
Christian  church.  (6)  Infants  were  members  of  the 
church  under  the  Old  Testament  economy.  (7) 
There  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament  which  justi- 
fies the  exclusion  of  the  children  of  believers  from 
membership  in  the  church.  (8)  Children  need,  and 
are  capable  of  receiving,  the  benefits  of  redemption." 
This  argument  is  likewise  held  by  the  Methodists.* 
It  may  be  found  succinctly  stated  in  Rosser  on 
Baptism  (p.  227)  in  the  following  propositions: 
"(1)  The  church  in  all  ages  is  under  the  same  great 
covenant  of  grace,  though  it  may  be  under  different 
dispensations.  (2)  Hence  the  seal  of  every  dis- 
pensation is  the  seal  of  the  general  covenant  of 
grace.  (3)  Therefore  baptism,  the  seal  of  the  cov- 
enant under  the  Christian  dispensation  is  substi- 
tuted  for   circumcision,   the   seal   of   the   covenant 

*  Cf .  Dr.  T.  O.  Summers,  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  II,  p. 
392  ff. 


AltCjir.MF.NTS  (»N    INFANT  HAI'TISM.  439 

under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  (4)  Hence  infants 
oujjht  to  be  baplized/'t  In  these  propositions  of  Dr. 
Hodge  and  Dr.  Rosser  the  inconclusiveness  of  the 
argument  is  apparent.  The  conclusion  does  not 
follow  from  the  premises,  e\-en  if  the  premises  be 
admitted.  Thre  is  much  irrelevant  reasoning  under 
each  proposition,  and  the  propositions  themselves 
are  not  logically  stated.  The  force  of  the  argument 
(if  it  has  any)  lies  in  two  great  assumptions  \vhich 
are  laid  down  as  premises:  (a)  That  the  Hebrew 
theocracy  under  Abraham  and  Moses  was  ''identical 
with  the  Christian  church,"  (Hodge),  (b)  That  bap- 
tism under  the  second  took  the  place  of  circumcision 
under  the  first.  We  deny  both  premises.  How  any 
man  can  read  the  IS'^ew  Testament  and  assert  that 
the  Jewish  nation,  which  he  chooses  to  call  the 
church,  was  "identical"  with  the  Christian  church, 
is  a  marvel.  If  the  Scriptures  teach  anything  con- 
cerning the  Christian  church,  they  teach  that  it  wa.^ 
a  new  thing  altogether,  that  the  old  covenant  had 
passed  away  and  this  was  a  new  institution — a  new 
dispensation.  Of  course,  some  things  were  the  same. 
God  was  the  same,  God's  grace  the  same,  God's  gen- 
eral dealings  with  the  i)eople  the  same ;  but  the  in- 
stitutions themselves  were  certainly  not  "identical." 
If  the  Jewish  commonwealth  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation was  ''identical"  with  the  church  under  the 
new  dispensation,  Peter  and  Paul  might  as  well  have 
remained  under  the  old.     They  both  had  received 

t  The  Episcopalians  also  sometimes  use  this  argument,  as 
Hodges  on  Infant  Baptism,  chaps,  v.,  vi.  It  is  also  urged, 
though  not  extensively,  by  the  Lutherans,  as  Dr.  C.  P. 
Krauth  in  his  Conservative  Beformation  and  its  Theology,  p.  577. 


440  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

the  sign  of  circumcision  and  were,  therefore,  mem- 
brs  of  the  church,  according  to  Hodge.  Where  was 
the  need,  then,  for  the  Apostle  Paul  to  be  baptized 
and  come  into  the  Christian  church?  Did  he  not 
write  concerning  himself:  "Circumcised  the  eighth 
day,  of  the  stock  of  Israel,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews;  as  touching  the  law,  a 
Pharisee;  as  touching  zeal,  persecuting  the  church; 
as  touching  the  righteousness  which  is  in  the  law, 
found  blameless?"  Why  should  he,  after  such  per- 
fect submission  under  the  old  covenant,  find  it  neces- 
sary to  add:  "Howbeit  what  things  were  gain  to 
me,  these  have  I  counted  loss  for  Christ?"  Again, 
we  read  that  the  Apostle,  presumably  after  Timothy's 
conversion  and  baptism,  took  that  young  man  and 
circumcised  him;  while  on  the  contrary,  he  refused 
to  circumcise  Titus,  who  was  a  Gentile.  If  circum- 
cision and  baptism  meant  the  same  thing,  or  one 
was  substituted  for  the  other,  it  is  hard  to  under- 
stand the  actions  and  language  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
Moreover,  in  announcing  the  coming  dispensation 
John  the  Baptist  distinctly  proclaims :  "Bring  forth 
therefore  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  and  begin  not 
to  say  within  yourselves.  We  have  Abraham  to  our 
father."  Could  he  thus  have  spoken  if  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  sealed  by  circumcision,  was  all-suffi- 
cient, and  identical  with  the  new?  In  whatever 
sense  it  may  be  true  that  the  Old  Testament 
economy,  or  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  or  the 
descendants  of  Abraham,  represent  God's  people  in 
the  earth,  it  is  only  a  huge  assumption  to  say  that 
these  were  "identical  with  the  Christian  church" 
under  the  new  dispensation. 


ARGUMENTS  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM.  441 

Psedobaptists  say  that  circumcision  was  no  longer 
necessary  because  baptism  was  put  in  its  place;  but 
we  deny  this  premise  also.  The  only  passage  which 
lends  any  countenance  to  this  theory  is  Col.  2:11,12: 
"In  whom  ye  were  also  circumcised  with  a  circum- 
cision not  made  with  hands,  in  the  putting  off  of  the 
body  of  the  flesh,  in  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  hav- 
ing been  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye 
were  also  raised  with  liim  through  faith  in  the  work- 
ing of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead."  But 
there  is  no  mention  here  of  any  substitution  of  bap- 
tism for  circumcision. 

But  suppose  we  grant  the  two  premises  that  the 
Jewish  commonwealth  is  identical  with  the  Chris- 
tian church,  and  that  baptism  came  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  do  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism 
then  follow  their  own  theory?  No;  for  they  do  not 
restrict  baptism  to  male  children,  nor  do  they  ex- 
tend it  to  the  servants  of  the  household,  both  of  which 
were  required,  or  customary,  in  regard  to  circum- 
cision. Dr.  AYayland*  points  out  that  baptism  must 
be  substituted  for  circumcision  either  physically  or 
spiritually,  and  says:  "If  it  be  said  that  baptism 
takes  tlie  ])laee  of  circumcision  in  the  physical  sense, 
then  religion  comes  by  hereditary  descent."  But  as 
this  will  not  be  admitted,  he  goes  on  to  say :  "If,  how- 
ever, it  be  said  that  baptism  takes  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision in  the  spiritual  sense,  then  hereditary 
descent  is  thrown  out  of  the  question.  Abraham  is 
a  tj'pe  of  a  believer.    Every  true  believer  is  a  child 

*  rrindj)les  and  Practices  of  the  Baptists,  p.  y6.  See  also 
Wilkinson.  The  Baptist  Principle,  p.  232,  for  a  clear  and  vig- 
orous presentation  of  the  same  point. 


442  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

of  Abraham,  and  is  for  this  cause  entitled  to  bap- 
tism,— 'If  ye  be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.'  To  this  doc- 
trine we  do  not  object.  It  is  what  we  believe,  though 
we  suppose  ourselves  to  have  a  much  more  direct 
way  of  arriving  at  the  same  conclusion," 

We  take  up,  in  the  second  place,  the  argument 
from  the  household  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament. 
Though  the  preceding  argument  be  the  main  reliance 
of  many  Paedobaptists,  they  endeavor  to  fortify  it 
by  appealing  to  the  cases  of  household  baptism  men- 
tioned in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  There  are  only 
three  of  these, — that  of  Lydia,  Acts  16:15;  that  of 
the  Philippian  jailer.  Acts  16:33,  and  that  of 
Stephanas,  1  Cor.  1:16.  Paedobaptists  differ  as  to 
the  use  they  make  of  this  argument.  Lutheran  com- 
mentators, as  Meyer  for  instance,  see  no  trace  of 
infant  baptism  in  these  passages,  and  the  Lutheran 
theologians  do  not  seem  to  press  the  point.  Dr. 
Hodge  only  brings  it  in  incidentally  in  his  seventh 
proposition,  "that  there  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  justifies  the  exclusion  of  the  children 
of  believers  from  membership  in  the  church."  He 
declares  that  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  those  who 
deny  this  proposition  (a  very  convenient  way  to 
settle  this,  sur-ely)  ;  for  the  relation  of  the  children 
to  the  Old  Testament  church  was  that  of  member- 
ship, and  as  a  matter  of  course  the  Apostles  in  bap- 
tizing would  act  on  the  princple  to  which  they  had 
always  been  accustomed.  "When  under  the  Old 
Testament  a  parent  [proselyted,  he  must  mean,  of 
course]  joined  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  he 
brought  his  minor  children  with  him;  when,  there- 


ARGUMENTS  OX   INFANT  BAPTISM.  -i-tS 

fore,  the  Apostles  baptized  the  head  of  the  family 
it  was  a  matter  of  course  that  they  should  baptize 
his  infaiit  children.  We  accordingly  find  several 
cases  of  such  household  baptism  recorded  in  the  Acts 
and  the  Epistles."  So  while  Dr.  Hodge  uses  this 
argument  as  corroborative,  as  fitting  in  with  the  con- 
ception of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  he  yet  commits 
himself  to  the  0])inioii  that  these  household  baptisms 
support  infant  baptism.  He  tries  to  explain  the  few- 
ness of  the  instances  on  account  of  the  brevity  of  the 
history.  Dr.  Summers,  on  the  contrary,  places  this 
first  among  his  arguments.  He  says  (Systematic 
Theology,  p.  384)  :  "That  the  baptism  of  young 
children  was  practised  by  the  church  from  the  be- 
ginning is  easily  shown.  It  is  not  said,  indeed,  in  so 
many  words  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  Apostles 
baptized  young  children.  There  was  no  occasion  to 
say  this  any  more  than  there  was  occasion  to  say 
that  they  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  to  women; 
but  both  are  implied  in  what  is  said.  When  Paul 
baptized  Stephanas  and  Lydia  he  baptized  also  their 
families."  Dr.  Summers  goes  on  to  make  distinction 
between  "family''  (»r/.,K)  and  "household"  (ot/.iu) 
and  maintains  accordingly  that  in  each  case  it  was 
the  "family,"  that  is,  the  children  who  were  baptized; 
and  that  it  was  only  the  "household,"  including  the 
servants,  of  Stephanas,  who  "were  addicted  to  the 
ministry  of  tlie  saints;"  besides,  he  declares  that 
"this  was  said  six  or  eight  years  later."  Thus  he 
tries  to  break  the  force  of  the  statement  in  regard 
to  the  household  of  Stephanas.  This  reasoning  is 
more  shrewd  than  solid;  for  the  distinction  between 
household  and  familv  is  unwarranted.    Liddell  and 


444  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Scott  do  not  recognize  any  such  distinction  in 
classical  Greek;  nor  does  Cremer's  Lexicon  of  the 
New  Testament.  More  distinctly  does  Thayer's 
Lexicon  say :  "In  the  sense  of  family,  »}y.<i(^  and  oizia 
are  alike  employed."  Again,  "In  the  New  Testament, 
although  the  words  at  times  appear  to  be  used  with 
some  discrimination ;  yet  other  passages  seem  to 
show  that  no  distinction  can  be  insisted  upon." 
Besides,  the  assumption  that  the  description  of 
Stephanas'  household  as  serving  the  saints  was  said 
six  or  eight  years  after  their  baptism,  is  no  argu- 
ment, for  we  do  not  know  when  they  began  their 
service,  even  if  we  were  sure  that  the  statement  was 
made  some  years  afterwards.  Hodges  likewise* 
from  the  Episcopal  side  makes  much  of  this  argu- 
ment from  the  supposed  distinction  of  household 
and  family. 

Let  us  consider  the  value  of  this  reasoning  from 
the  household.  The  most  that  can  be  said  for  it  is 
that,  if  infant  baptism  could  be  otherwise  proved 
to  have  been  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  these 
passages  could  be  interpreted  to  coincide  with  that 
view;  but  of  direct  proof  they  offer  nothing.  This 
is  conceded  by  all.  On  the  contrary,  if  believers' 
baptism  be  proved  to  have  been  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles,  these  passages  confirm  that  view,  because 
in  two  out  of  the  three,  expressions  in  the  context 
or  elsewhere  imply  belief  on  the  part  of  those  who 
received  baptism.  Some  Psedobaptists  attempt  to 
evade,  or  explain  away,  these  expressions,  but  this 
is  such  evident  special  pleading  that  it  fails  to  con- 
vince. Dr.  Bushnell  in  one  of  his  sermons  on 
*  hifavt  Baptism,  p.  2U. 


AIUilMKNT^:  ON   INFANT  I'.AI'TIS.M. 


4i5 


Christian  Xurtiirc  says  that  the  fact  that  uo  children 
are  mentioned  in  the  household  of  Stephanas  proves 
more  for   infant   baptism  than   it   does   against   it 
because  it  recognizes  the  solidarit}'  of  the  family, 
so  to  speak,  and  that  infant  baptism  is  based  upon 
the  ''organic  relation  between  parents  and  children." 
This  attempt  to    extract  an  argument    for    infant 
baptism  out  of  the  silence  concerning  infancy  in  the 
passages  adduced  reminds  one  of  the  famous  philoso- 
pher   who    proposed    to     extract     sunshine     from 
potatoes;  and  it  is  about  as  successful.     In  the  re- 
maining passage,  that  concerning  Lydia,  the  natural 
implication  is  in  the  same  direction,  that  is,  baptism 
as  an  act  is  always  so  described  elsewhere  of  be- 
lievers that  when  it  is  said  that  the  household  or 
family  of  Lydia  was  baptized,  it  means  either  that 
actually  all  of  them  believed,  or  that  all  of  them  who 
were  capable  of  belief  believed  and  were  baptized. 
When  you  say  that  the  family  of  your  friend  on  your 
departure  walked  out  with  you  as  far  as  the  gate, 
you  mean  either  that  all  actually  walked  out  with 
you,  or  that  those  who  could  walk  accompanied  you. 
If  there  was  an  infant  in  the  cradle  the  description 
would  not  necessarily  include  him,  though  expressed 
in  general  terms. 

Next  we  take  up  the  relation  of  Christianity  to 
children.  This  is  not  so  much  one  definite  argu- 
ment, as  it  is  a  collection  of  various  ones.  It  is  not 
urged  by  all  Piedobaptists  in  the  same  way.  With 
the  l»resbyterians,  as  before,  all  goes  back  to  the 
Abrahamic  cownant.  This  includes  the  children, 
or  posterity,  both  adults  and  infants,  of  Abraham; 
and  so  the  covenant  of  God  with  the  church  includes 


446  ORDIXANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

believers  and  their  children,  and  since  admission 
into  the  old  covenant  was  by  circumcision,  so  is  it 
into  the  new  covenant  by  baptism;  therefore,  the 
children  of  believers  should  be  baptized.  Other 
Psedobaptists.  however,  do  not  insist  that  one  or 
both  parents  must  be  members  of  the  church  in 
order  that  the  infants  may  be  baptized;  holding  that 
the  relation  of  the  church  to  children  is  also  direct, 
as  well  as  through  the  parents,  and  therefore, 
children  should  be  received  by  baptism  into  the 
church,  as  members  under  its  fostering  care. 
Among  the  Catholics,  Episcopalians  and  Lutherans 
the  rite  of  confirmation,  when  the  child  reaches  the 
age  of  discretion,  completes  the  baptism  and  makes 
the  child,  now  as  a  grown  person,  a  full  member,  or 
communicant.  In  the  Presbyterian  church,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Shedd:*  ''The  baptism  of  the  infant  of  a 
believer  supposes  the  actual  or  prospective  opera- 
tion of  the  regenerating  Spirit  in  order  to  the 
efficacy  of  the  rite.  Infant  baptism  does  not  confer 
the  regenerating  Spirit,  but  is  a  sign  that  he  either 
has  been,  or  will  be,  conferred  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  promise  in  the  covenant  of  grace.  The  actual 
conferring  of  the  Spirit  may  be  prior  to  baptism,  or 
in  the  act  itself,  or  subsequent  to  it."'  He  further 
says  (p.  576)  of  the  children  of  believers:  "They  are 
church  members  by  reason  of  their  birth  from  believ- 
ing parents,  and  it  has  been  truly  said  that  the  ques- 
tion that  confronts  them  at  the  period  of  discretion 
is  not.  Will  you  join  the  visible  church?  but,  Will 
you  go  out  of  it?-'  He  adds  that  baptism  is  accord- 
ingly the  infallible  sign  of  regeneration  when  the 
*  Dogmatic  Theology,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  575. 


AUGr.MlOXTS  OX    INFANT   r.Al'J'l.S.M.  447 

child  (lies  in  infancy,  but  only  tiie  jrrohahle  sign  when 
he  lives  to  years  of  discretion. 

Passing  over  other  differences  among  the  Psedo- 
baptists  themselves  we  can  only  say  that  this  general 
matter  of  the  relation  of  the  church  to  children, 
which  entitles  them  to  be  baptized  and  received  into 
its  bosom,  is  argued  by  an  ap])eal  to  various 
Scriptures:  (a)  Matt.  19:13-15,  with  the  parallel 
passages  in  Mark  and  Luke.  This  is  the  record  con- 
cerning the  bringing  of  little  children  to  our  Lord 
for  his  blessing,  and  his  saying:  ''Suffer  the  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me :  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But  surely  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  the  remotest  kind  of  remote 
inference  from  this  passage.  There  is  not  a  word 
here  of  baptism,  neither  does  our  Lord  say  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  consists  of  these,  as  children,  but 
of  such  as  these,  who  through  regeneration  and  faith 
(Comp.  Matt.  18:2-4)  become  like  them.  (b)P8edo- 
baptists  also  adduce  in  this  connection  the  Com- 
mission (Matt.  28:19).  They  interpret  our  Lord's 
command  here  as  if  it  were  to  "make  disciples  of  all 
nations  by  baptizing  them,"  that  is,  Incorporate  into 
the  church  by  baptism  all  nations,  including  the 
children.  Dr.  Summers  remarks  that  to  the  Jew  this 
language  would  have  been  necessarily  so  under- 
stood .  and  suggests,  as  a  parallel  case,  that  if  our 
Lord  liad  said,  '"Proselyte  all  nations  to  Judaism  by 
circumcising  them,  a  Jew  would  have  understood  it 
as  applying  necessarily  to  the  children."  But  there 
is  here  a  fallacy.  To  proselyte  by  circumcision  would 
necessarily  have  been  understood  as  applying  to  the 
male  infants,  because  all  that  we  know  about  circum- 


448  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

cision  was  to  that  effect.  But  to  make  disciples  by 
baptizing  (even  supposing  this  to  be  the  correct 
rendering,  which  it  is  not)  would  necessarily  imply 
that  they  should  be  made  disciples  and  baptized  in 
the  way  those  terms  are  properly  understood.  To 
make  a  disciple  of  a  man  involves  teaching  and  bap- 
tizing him  according  to  New  Testament  princi- 
ples and  practice,  and  therefore  was  meant  for  one 
who  had  believed.  It  is  assuming  the  point  at  issue 
to  say  that  "make  disciples  by  baptizing"  involves 
the  baptizing  of  infants.  Besides,  proselyting  by 
circumcision  was  not  a  spiritual  act,  but  a  national 
one;  whereas,  baptism  follows  upon,  and  is  involved 
in,  the  spiritual  action  of  the  recipient.  Another 
objection  to  this  interpretation  is  that  it  proves  too 
much.  If  we  interpret  it  "make  disciples  by  bap- 
tizing," it  would  lead  us  to  do  as  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics have  sometimes  done,  perform  the  rite  of  baptism 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  and  make  men  Christians 
without  their  own  consent!  (c)  Another  passage 
quoted  is  Acts  2 :38,39  where  Peter,  addressing  the 
multitude  at  Jerusalem,  says:  "Repent  ye,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
unto  the  remission  of  your  sins;and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  to  you  is  the 
promise,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  oft',  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call 
unto  him."  On  this  Hodges  (p.  209  f.)  remarks: 
"Here  children  are  expressly  named  with  their 
parents  and  by  a  Jew  addressing  Jews,  who  had 
always  been  accustomed  to  have  their  childi'en  under 

the  covenant  with  themselves It  is  not 

at  all  wonderful  that    persons    brought    up    under 


ARGUMENTS  OX   INFAXT  BAPTISM.  44^ 

Antipoedobaptist  iuflnciicos  should  at  first  be  dis- 
posed to  refer  tlie  words  of  the  Apostle  Peter  to 
posterity  grown  up,  because  they  look  at  it  with 
entirely  different  feelings  and  different  views  from  a 
Jew."  There  are  three  objections  to  the  Pa^dobaj)- 
tist  interpretation  of  this  passage:  (1)  The  require,- 
ment  in  verse  38  presupposes  repentance  and  faith. 
"Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized,"  says  Peter.  (2) 
Naturalh'  posterity  is  meant,  "Unto  you  and  your 
children,"  that  is,  to  you  and  those  who  come  after 
you.  If  not,  those  who  are  '"afar  off"  must  bel)a])tized 
too,  because  the  promise  is  also  to  them.  (3)  But 
if  children  are  meant,  it  easily  might  mean  whenever 
they  become  capable  of  exercising  the  faith  upon 
which  the  act  of  baptism  is  presupposed.  The 
promise  of  an  inheritance  made  to  a  child  awaits 
fulfillment  until  the  child  is  of  age.  (d)  The  famous 
passage  in  I.  Cor.  7:12-14  is  also  adduced  in  this  con- 
nection :  "If  any  brother  hath  an  unbelieving  wife, 
and  she  is  content  to  dwell  with  him,  let  him  not 
leave  her.  And  the  woman  which  hath  an  unbeliev- 
ing husband,  and  he  is  content  to  dwell  with  her,  let 
her  not  leave  her  husband.  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  in  the  wife,  and  the  unbeliev- 
ing wife  is  sanctified  in  the  brother:  else  were  your 
children  unclean;  but  now  are  they  holy."  This  is 
considered  to  mean  that  the  expression  "holy"  here 
applied  to  the  children  involves  church  membership, 
and  therefore  baptim.  If  this  were  so,  then  the  un- 
believing husband,  or  wife,  is  also  "sanctified,"  and 
therefore  a  church  member,  and  therefore  to  be  bap- 
tized! (e)  Another  passage  assumed  to  imply  infant 
church  membership,  and  therefore  infant  baptism,  is 


450  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Eph.  6 :1 :  "Children,  obe}'  your  parents  in  the  Lord : 
for  this  is  right."  It  is  said  that  children  are  here 
addressed  as  church  members  along  with  other 
church  members.  Well,  if  this  is  true,  infants  are 
not  in  question,  but  those  children  who  are  capable 
of  appreciating  an  appeal  of  this  sort.  If  they  were 
old  enough  to  be  reasoned  with  in  this  fashion,  they 
were  old  enough  to  repent  and  be  baptized.  But  in 
the  Christian  families,  that  is,  those  which  were  pre- 
dominantly Christian,  here  addressed  and  advised, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  all  were 
Christians,  The  domestic  duties  outlined  through- 
out this  whole  passage  applied  to  all  to  whom  they 
were  appropriate. 

We  now  consider  the  argument  from  history.  In 
confirmation  of  their  practice  Pa?dobaptists  are  ac- 
customed to  appeal  to  history.  This  reasoning  has 
two  elements,  namely,  the  early  rise,  and  the  continu- 
ous existence,  of  the  practice.  In  regard  to  the  early 
rise  of  infant  baptism  again  two  points  are  insisted 
upon.  The  first  is  that  the  origin,  being  very  early 
indeed,  was  probably  apostolic;  which  is  assumed, 
and  said  to  be  proved,  from  patristic  testimony.  In 
the  chapter  devoted  to  the  historic  outline  of  the  sub- 
ject this  matter  has  already  been  discussed,  and  need 
not  here  be  fully  treated.  The  best  that  can  be  said  is 
that  the  practice  was  probably  in  existence  in  the 
time  of  Tertullian,  say  about  160..  But  this  is  some- 
what doubtful,  because  Tertullian's  reference  was 
not  certainly  to  infants.  As  was  remarked  before, 
the  first  really  undisputed  reference  to  the  existence 
of  infant  baptism  Ib  in  the  letter  of  Cyprian,  in  253. 
Of  course,  it  existed  earlier  than  this  letter,  for  it  is 


ARGU.MKXTS  OX   INFANT  BAPTISM.  451 

here  spoken  of  as  a  thing  commonly  understood,  at 
least  in  North  Africa.  But  all  attempts  to  demon- 
strate its  apostolic,  or  even  sub-apostolic  origin  have 
failed;  so  that  its  rise  cannot  be  put  on  historic 
grounds  earlier  than  the  second  century,  or  even 
the  third,  and  it  was  clearly  then  not  a  universal 
practice. 

The  other  point  is  that  the  earliest  undisputed 
mention  of  infant  baptism  affords  a  strong  inference 
back  to  the  Apostles.  Dr.  Wall*  taking  Cyprian's 
date  and  estimating  that  some  of  the  Apostles  were 
living  in  the  year  100,  thus  put  the  argument :  "If  we 
look  back  from  his  time  to  the  space  that  had  passed 
we  must  conclude  that  it  was  easy  then  to  know  the 
practice  of  Christians  in  the  Apostles-'  days;  for  some 
of  these  sixty-six  bishops  must  be  thought  to  be  at 
this  time  seventy  or  eighty  years  old  themselves, 
which  reaches  to  half  the  space,  and  at  that  time 
when  they  were  infants,  there  must  have  been  several 
alive  that  were  born  within  the  Apostles'  age,  and 
such  could  not  be  ignorant  whether  infants  were 
baptized  in  that  age  when  themselves  were  infants."' 
But  this  is  very  precarious  reasoning.  It  contains 
too  many  assumptions,  and  at  best  affords  no  evi- 
dence of  infant  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  not  150  years  since  the  Revolutionary  War  in  this 
country,  and  yet,  traditional  stories  of  events  that 
might  have  occurred  then  are  now  dubious  and  dis- 
carded unless  authenticated  in  contemporary 
records.  Inferences  from  A.  D.  250  back  to  the 
Apostles,  therefore,  cannot  be  admitted.  There  is 
much  better  inference  for  baptismal  regeneration, 

*  Vol.  i.,  p.  13fi.  ~'  " 


452  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

because  the  traces  of  that  error  appear  much  earlier 
than  do  the  indications  of  infant  baptism.  The 
earliest  Fathers  clearly  teach  baptismal  regenera- 
tion. Have  we  not  a  right,  therefore,  to  say  that  they 
knew  what  the  Apostles  taught  in  regard  to  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  and  thus  trace  it  back  to  the 
New  Testament?  Again,  there  is  just  as  good,  if 
not  better,  inference  for  trine  immersion.  Fathers  as 
early  as  this,  or  earlier,  mentioned  trine  immersion. 
Have  we  not  as  good  reason,  therefore,  to  believe  that 
the  Apostles  taught  trine  immersion?  So  clearh'  was 
this  point  seen  by  the  Eev.  James  Chrystal  that  in 
his  Modes  of  Baptism  he  argues  that  trine  immersion 
ought  to  be  restored  on  the  same  grounds  that  infant 
baptism  should  be  practised.  Furthermore,  there  is 
just  as  much  argument  for  infant  communion  on  this 
ground  as  there  is  for  infant  baptism.  Those,  there- 
fore, who  practise  infant  baptism  by  virtue  of  this 
argument  must,  to  be  consistent,  approve  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  and  practise  trine  immersion 
and  infant  communion. 

The  other  branch  of  this  historical  argument  is 
that  since  this  [practice  began  so  early,  and  continued 
so  long  among  Christian  people,  it  must  have  some 
foundation  in  truth,  and  ought  not  to  be  abandoned 
without  the  best  reason.  But  this  might  be  said  of 
a  great  many  errors.  No  one  would  admit  the  va- 
lidity of  such  reasoning  without  having  some  interest 
in  it.  On  the  whole,  the  historic  argument  is  well 
enough  for  Catholics,  but  is  entirely  out  of  place  for 
Protestants.  Its  inferential  value  is  all  that  is  in  its 
favor.  And  the  inference  from  history  is  as  much 
against  infant  baptism  as  for  it.     Some  Paedobap- 


ARGl'MEXTS  OX   INFANT  r.AI'I'ISM.  453 

lists  have  admitted  this.  The  great  historian 
Neander  said:  'That  it  at  first  became  recof!;nized  as 
an  apostolic  tradition  in  the  course  of  the  third 
century,  is  evidence  rather  against,  than  for,  the 
admission  of  the  ai)ostoli('  origin;  esjiecially  since,  in 
the  spirit  of  the  age  when  Christianity  appeared, 
there  were  many  elements  which  must  have  l)een 
favorable  to  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism."* 

We  take  up  now  the  argument  from  church  author- 
ity. This  is  the  Catholic  argument.  It  was  very  well 
stated  by  Dr.  DoHinger  in  his  First  Age  of  the 
Chnrch  (p.  319)  :  'There  is  no  proof,  or  hint,  in 
the  New  Testament  that  the  Apostles  baptized  in- 
fants, or  ordered  them  to  be  baptized.''  He  goes  on 
to  say  concerning  Christ:  ''But  so  far  as  we  know  he 
left  no  command  about  it.  It  was  one  of  those  many 
things  his  church  was  to  learn  in  her  gradual  de- 
velopment through  the  Paraclete  whom  he  had 
given."  Gibbons,  in  his  Faith  of  our  Fathers,  uses 
the  same  argument,  but  tries  to  support  the  assump- 
tion of  his  church  in  this  regard  by  Scripture  and 
tradition  as  coinciding  with  her  judgment  in  the 
case.  Protestant  Pjedobaptists  do  not  admit  this 
argument.  They  deny  the  Roman  claims,  and  we 
join  them  in  the  denial.  We  maintain  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  only  rule. 

We  pass  on  now  to  note  the  argument  from  the 
eflScacy  of  baptism.  This  is  rejected  by  the  Presby- 
terians and  Methodists.  It  is  dallied  with  by  the 
Episcopalians  and  Lutherans,  but  stated  in  the 
baldest  form  by  the  Roman  Catholics.    Dr.  Wall  in 

*  Howell,  J£vils  of  Infant  Baptism,  p.  29. 


454  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

his  Slimming  upf  decidedly  leans  in  that  way,  and 
so  do  high  churchmen  generallj^  Dr.  Krauth  for 
the  Lutherans!  tries  to  explain  that  the  phrase  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  that  "baptism  is  necessary 
to  salvation,"  does  not  mean  essential  to  salvation 
as  absolutely  and  unconditionally  necessary,  but  may 
admit  of  exceptions.  This  is  like  the  language  of  the 
Catechism  of  the  Anglican  Church  on  the  subject, 
which  says  that  baptism  is  "generally  necessary  to 
salvation."  Whatever  these  dubious  phrases  may 
mean,  the  Psedobaptists  use  the  importance  of  bap- 
tism to  salvation  as  an  argument  for  infant  baptism. 
It  remains  for  the  Romanists  with  their  logical 
consistency  to  state  the  argument  in  its  undisguised 
form.  Thus,  Gibbons*  says:  "Original  sin,  as  Saint 
Paul  has  told  us,  is  universal.  Every  child  is,  there- 
fore, defiled  at  his  birth  with  the  taint  of  Adam's 
disobedience.  Now  the  Scripture  says  that  nothing 
defiled  ran  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  hence, 
baptism,  which  washes  away  original  sin,  is  as 
essential  for  the  infant  as  for  the  full  grown  man  in 
order  to  attain  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  We  join 
the  Methodists  and  Presbyterians  in  repudiating  this 
doctrine ;  and  would  like  to  remind  our  Episcopalian 
and  Lutheran  friends  that  the  Disciples,  commonly 
called  Campbellites,  who  like  them  use  very  strong 
and  dubious  language  as  to  the  relation 'of  baptism 
to  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  therefore  to  salvation, 
do  not  find  their  doctrine  an  argument  for  infant 
baptism. 

t  Vol.  ii.,  p.  495  f. 

t  The  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  llicology,  p.  557  L 

*  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  p.  311. 


ARGUMENTS  OX  INFANT  BAL'TISM.  455 

Another  argument  is  that  from  established  cnstom. 
This  is,  that  infant  baptism  is  of  such  long  standing 
among  Christians  as  to  have  a  certain  presumption 
in  its  favor.  There  are  two  ways  of  looking  at  this. 
According  to  Whately  the  burden  of  proof  is  placed 
on  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism,  and  if  they  do 
not  succeed  in  showing  it  to  be  wrong  it  must  be 
allowed  to  stand,  as  an  ancient  custom  with  the  pro- 
babilities in  its  favor.  Dr.  Carson  in  his  book  on 
baptism  clearly  shows  that  Dr.  Whately's  treatment 
of  presumption  and  the  burden  of  proof  was  alto- 
gether wrong.  But  this  is  really  no  argument  at  all. 
It  is  only  an  attempt  to  evade  argument,  as  Carson 
has  shown.  The  other  way  of  regarding  the  appeal  to 
custom  is  that  of  Dean  Stanley,  who  simply  takes 
the  position  that  a  long  standing  custom  may  out- 
weigh Scripture;  for  after  frankly  admitting  that 
infant  baptism,  in  part  at  least,  arose  from  the 
superstitious  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  he  goe? 
on|  to  say  that  there  is  a  better  side  to  the  growth 
of  this  practice,  "which  if  it  did  not  mingle  in  its 
origin  is  at  least  the  cause  of  its  continuance."  Here 
he  speaks  of  the  Christian  household  and  the  family 
relation,  the  union  of  family  life  under  Christian 
auspices,  and  so  on ;  and  then  declares  that  another 
reason  is  found  in  the  character  of  the  children,  say- 
ing that  infant  baptism  is  thus  the  recognition  of  the 
good  that  there  is  in  the  human  soul,  and  adds  fur- 
ther :  "The  substitution  of  infant  baptism  for  adult 
baptism,  like  the  change  from  immersion  to  sprink- 
ling is  a  triumph  of  Christian  charity.  It  exemplifies 
at  the  first  beginning  of  life  that  divine  grace  which 

X  Christian  Institutions,   p.  20. 


4:56  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

hopes  all  things;  believes  all  things,  endures  all 
things.  In  each  such  little  child  our  Saviour  saw, 
and  we  may  see,  the  promise  of  a  glorious  future." 
But  there  is  no  real  argument  in  all  this.  It  is  only  a 
feeble  attempt  to  justify  a  long-established  practice. 
There  is  nothing  in  any  of  it  about  baptism  as  an 
ordinance.    It  is  pure  rationalism. 

Lastly,  we  mention  the  argument  from  sentiment. 
Nearly  all  the  other  arguments  appeal  to  sentiment 
for  their  reinforcement.  Thus  Stanley,  as  just  point- 
ed out,  puts  the  sentimental  plea  on  the  ground  of 
what  is  good  in  the  child — leans  strongly  to  the 
Pelagian  doctrine  af  the  innocence  of  children  when 
born.  Gibbons,  on  the  contrary,  puts  it  on  the 
ground  of  the  original  sin  and  certain  damnation  of 
the  child.  He  goes  on  to  compare  the  Baptist  to  the 
woman  before  Solomon,  who  was  willing  that  the 
living  child  should  be  divided,  and  the  Catholic 
Church  to  the  real  mother,  who  was  willing  to  let  the 
other  have  the  child  just  so  its  life  might  be  spared! 
The  Presbyterians  and  Methodists  put  it  on  the 
tender  relation  which  the  church  should  have  toward 
the  children,  on  the  sense  of  parental  responsibility, 
on  the  probable  and  supposed  benefit  of  baptism,  and 
still  others  on  the  beauty  of  it  as  a  ceremony  of  con- 
secration to  the  Lord.  Her^  perhaps  may  also  be 
reckoned  the  novel  and  peculiar  theory  advanced  by 
Horace  Bushnell  in  his  famous  sermons  on  Christian 
Nurture,  and  elaborated  more  fully  in  his  defence  of 
these  discourses.  His  theory  was  that  what  he  calls 
"explosive  conversions,"  that  is,  sudden  conver- 
sions, are  all  Avrong;  that  the  child  of  Christian 
parents  has  a  certain  "organic  relation"  to  then< 


ARGUMENTS  OX   INFANT  r.AI'TISM,  457 

whereby  it  receives  attraction  at  least  towards  a 
Christian  life,  and  the  child  must  therefore  grow  up 
into  Christianity,  and  that  baptism  should  accord- 
ingly be  given  to  it  as  a  sort  of  pledge,  or  at  least  ex- 
pectation that  the  child  would  become  a  Christian. 
This  view  was  not  acceptable  to  the  Congrega- 
tionalists  generally,  and  was  answered  by  Dr.  Tyler.* 
The  theory  has  no  value  except  as  showing  the  fruit- 
age of  a  very  original  mind  that  saw  the  weakness 
of  infant  baptism  as  it  was  usually  advocated,  and 
set  forth  a  line  of  defence  which  could  supi)ort  the 
author  in  the  traditional  practice  of  his  people.  All 
these  various  arguments  which  appeal  to  sentiment 
rather  than  to  the  declarations  of  the  Scripture  are 
of  little  worth.  We  insist  that  the  Word  of  God 
alone  must  decide  a  question  of  this  sort. 

We  pass  on  now  to  consider  the  arguments  against 
infant  baptism.  Thei-e  is  no  need  to  discuss  these  at 
length,  for  they  have  been  in  a  measure  anticipated 
in  the  review  of  the  arguments  for  the  practice,  but 
it  is  well  to  state  positively  the  objections  which  lie 
against  the  usage,  with  some  additions: 

1.  Infant  baptism  is  not  proven  by  its  advocates. 
The  proof  adduced  is  inadequate  when  each  separate 
part  of  it  is  tested,  as  has  been  shown.  The  Psedo- 
baptists  fail  to  agree  among  thenisclvcs  as  to  the 
grounds,  both  of  the  origin  and  the  continuance  of 
the  practice.  Thus  in  a  measure  one  condemns 
another.  There  is  endless  confusion  and  inconsist- 
ency among  those  who  argue  for  it.  This  was  admitt- 
ed by  Dr.  Bushnell,  who  says  in  the  work  above 

*  It  is  also  ably  reviewed  in  Curtis'  Progress  of  Baptist 
Principles,  p.  246  IT. 


458  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

referred  to:  ''No  settled  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
infant  baptism  and  of  Christian  nurture  has  ever 
been  attained  to.  Between  the  standard  Protestant 
writers  themselves  there  has  been  no  agreement. 
What  is  the  covenant?  What  meaning  and  force 
has  it  ?  Here  we  have  never  agreed,  and  do  not  now. 
The  Baptists  have  pushed  us  for  an  answer.  We  have 
given  them  many  answers,  but  never  any  single 
answer  in  which  we  could  agree  among  ourselves." 
2.  Infant  baptism  is  not  supported  by  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  both  unscriptural  and  anti-scriptural. 
It  is  unscriptural  because  there  is  no  proof  in  the 
Scriptures  for  it, — there  is  no  statement,  no  example, 
no  requirement.  This  the  Pa^dobaptists  themselves 
admit.  It  is  an  inference  to  them,  and  because  they 
would  have  it  so,  it  seems  a  good  inference.  To  us 
it  seems  a  very  attenuated  one.  But  it  is  also  anti- 
scriptural,  being  opposed  to  the  clear  teachings 
of  the  Word,  both  example  and  precept.  It  is  out  of 
tune  with  the  great  doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  with  that  of  justification  by  faith  alone, 
with  that  of  the  duty  of  repentance  toward  God  and 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  that  of  the  in- 
dividual responsibility  of  each  soul  for  its  actions. 
Again,  it  is  contrary  to  the  general  trend  of  Scrip- 
ture teachings  and  to  the  character  of  New  Testa- 
ment religion.  So  far  is  the  New  Testament  dis- 
pensation from  being  a  continuance  of  the  Old  that 
it  is  distinctly  said  to  be  new  and  different.  It  is  no 
longer  a  nation,  a  theocratic  commonwealth,  but  a 
spiritual  Israel.  It  is  no  longer  limited  to  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  but  is  at  the  same 
time  both  extended  and  limited  to  the  spiritual  des- 


ARGUMENTS  OX  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


459 


cendants  of  Abraham  as  ''the  father  of  the  faithful," 
that  is,  of  true  believers. 

3.     Infant    baptism    is    objectionable    on    other 
grounds.*     The    following    points    may    be    made 
against  the   practice:    (1)   It   tends    to    lower    the 
authority  of  Scripture  by  inducing  misinterpretation 
and  sustaining  an  unscriptural  theory  (Hodge  and 
Summers)  ;  by  elevating  the  authority  of  the  church 
and  of  tradition  (the  Catholics,  Wall  and  others), 
and  even  by  wholly  disregarding  the  Scriptures  and 
setting  up    custom    as  a    triumph    over    Scripture 
(Stanley).     (2)  It  fosters  grave  errors  in  regard  to 
baptism.     Being  itself  a  formidable  error,  it  helps 
others.    Of  these,  baptismal  regeneration  and  infant 
baptism  go  hand  in  hand.    The  Catholics  are  logical 
enough  to  recognize     and     accept  the  connection. 
Some  of  the  Protestants  are  equivocal  on  the  subject. 
The     Lutheran     Confession     and     the     Anglican 
Catechism  teach  baptismal  regeneration.  Their  theo- 
logians attempt  to  explain  it  away,  but  the  people 
under  the  Catholic  and  Episcopal  teachings  often 
feel  baptism  to  be  essential  to  salvation.    Instances 
occur  when  mothers  in  the  case  of  ill  infants  who 
have  not  been  baptized  send  for  a  minister  in  terrible 
fear  least  the  little  one  should  be  lost  for  lack  of  bap- 
tism.   It  would  make  the  ordinance  merely  the  cere- 
mony of  consecrating  an  unconscious  person ;  instead 
of  the  self-dedication  of  a  true  penitent,  as  was  in- 
tended.   Again,  it  helps  on  the  uns(;rii»tural  change 

*  The  objections  have  been  well  stated  by  Dr.  Howell  in 
his  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  also  by  Dr.  A.  H.  Strong,  in 
his  Systematic  Theology,  p.  537  f . 


460  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

as  to  the  act,  because  in  the  case  of  infants,  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling  are  more  convenient  than  immers- 
ion, which  is  the  true  scriptural  action ;  and  finally 
it  induces  the  neglect  of  the  ordinance,  or  the  sub- 
stitution of  something  else,  on  the  part  of  its  proper 
subjects.  (3)  Infant  baptism  tends  to  obliterate 
the  distinction  between  the  church  and  the  world. 
It  is  sad  enough  in  all  denominations  to  see  how  thin 
is  the  wall  of  separation  which  divides  the  people  of 
God  from  those  who  are  without ;  but  especially  does 
this  appear  in  churches  which  sanction  the  idea  that 
conversion  in  mature  life  is  not  required, — that  bap- 
tism in  infancy  makes  one  a  Christian.  This  is  true 
more  especially  of  the  Lutheran  and  Episcopal 
churches,  but  in  other  Psedobaptist  churches  it 
leads  even  such  men  as  Hodge  and  Summers  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  not  all  church  members  are 
actually  regenerated,  and  so  excuse  a  deplorable  fact 
by  using  it  as  an  argument  for  an  unscriptural  doc- 
trine. (4)  Infant  baptism  makes  an  improper  dis- 
tinction between  church  members  and  communicants, 
involving  thus  the  celebration  of  the  other  ordinance. 
Of  course  sometimes  persons  who  are  members  of 
the  church  might  well  be  suspended  or  restrained, 
because  of  glaring  inconsistencies  of  life,  from  par- 
ticipating in  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  this  is  quite  a 
different  thing  from  having  a  whole  class  of  church 
members  who  are  not  permitted  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Either  it  debars  those  who  are  theo- 
retically qualified  in  that  they  have  been  baptized 
and  are  members  of  the  church,  or  it  admits  those 
who  are  spiritually  unqualified  because  they  are  bap- 
tized without  having  been  converted.      (5)    Infant 


AHGL'MEXTS  OX   INFANT  RATTISM.  461 

baptism  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  error  of  church 
and  state.  This  objection  is  forcibly  presented  by 
Dr.  Howell.*  He  quotes  an  English  advocate  of  in- 
fant baptism  as  saying  :  "A  national  church  must, 
therefore,  be  a  Psedobaptist  church.  Indeed,  those 
who  aim  at  a  national  church  must  have  some  prin- 
ciple upon  which  the  whole  of  its  inhabitants  must 
be  placed  within  its  pale.  This,  infant  baptism  alone 
renders  possible."  This  puts  the  case  squarely  and 
candidly.  If  a  citizen  of  the  state  must  be  a  church 
member,  birth  and  baptism  must  be  near  to  each 
other.  So  these  two  errors  aid  each  other, —  they 
are  mutually  supported.  In  this  country,  where  no 
state  church  is  tolerated,  there  is  less  of  psedobap- 
tism  even  among  Protestants  than  is  the  case  where 
there  is  union  between  church  and  state,  which  goes 
to  show  the  natural  sympathy  between  these  two 
unscriptural  practices. 

*  £vils  of  Infant  Baptism,  p.  12. 


462  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  BAPTISM. 

I.  The  Baptist  View. 

1.  Not  spiritually  efficacious. 

(1)  Neither  in  itself. 

(2)  Nor  instrumentally. 

2.  Symbolic. 

(1)  In  the  element,  water. 

(2)  In  the  act,  burial  and  resurrection. 

3.  Declarative ;  of  faith  and  purpose. 

II.  The  Opposing  Views. 

1.  Romanist.     Baptism  necessary  to  salvation. 

2.  Anglican.    Language  means  that,  but  is  some- 

times explained  away. 

3.  Lutheran.     Like  Anglican. 

4.  Presbyterian.     Rejects    baptismal    regenera- 

tion, but  teaches  "sign  and  seal." 

5.  Methodist.     Rejects  baptismal  regeneration. 
0.  "Campbellite."     Baptism    for    remission    of 

sins.    Some  differences  amono-  them. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Having  discussed  the  act,  tlie  agent,  and  the  re- 
cipients of  baptism,  we  bring  next  under  considera- 
tion the  significance  of  the  ordinance.  Various 
terms  have  been  employed  to  set  forth  what  is  in- 
tended, such  as  the  "design,"  "necessity,"  "efficacy;" 
and  as  setting  forth  some  particular  part  of  the  gen- 
eral meaning  of  the  ordinance  each  one  of  these 
terms  is  used,  but  none  of  them  is  broad  enough. 
"Significance"  seems  to  be  the  best,  as  it  can  be 
made  to  include  the  others.  For  clearness  and  de- 
finiteness  of  treatment  it  will  be  well  to  state  the 
Baptist  view,  and  then  discuss  the  opposing  views. 

The  Baptist  view  of  the  significance  of  baptism 
has  the  advantage  of  being  clear,  straightforward, 
selfconsistent  and  scriptural.  According  to  it,  the 
act  of  baptism  is  not  spiritually  efficacious  in  any 
sense,  but  is  symbolical  and  declarative.  Let  us 
treat  these  points  separately. 

The  first  element  of  this  statement  is  that  the  act 
of  baptism  is  not  spiritually  efficacious.  By  this  is 
meant  that  certainly  not  the  mere  act  itself,  'even 
when  faithfully  performed  and  conscientiously  ac- 
cepted, administers  or  causes  any  spiritual  grace; 
but  Baptists  go  further  and  deny  that  the  act  of  bap- 
tism is  such  a  channel  or  instrument  of  divine 
efficacy  as  that  God  regenerates  and  forgives  in  or 

433 


46 i  ORDINANCES  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

through  baptism,  when  he  does  not  regenerate  or 
forgive  without  it.  In  other  words,  baptism  does 
not  effect  any  spiritual  change  in  the  recipient,  but 
simply  sets  forth  the  change  which  has  already  been 
effected  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  This  change  is  de- 
scribed on  the  divine  side  in  the  words  regenera- 
tion, and  forgiveness  of  sins;  on  the  human  side  in 
the  words  i'ei)entance.  and  faith.  Now  baptism  does 
not  in  any  way  produce  these  spiritual  effects. 

The  Baptists  assert  that  baptism  is  a  symbolical 
action;  that  the  experiences  of  grace  are  outwardly 
signified  in  the  act  of  baptism,  and  this  in  two 
ways:  both  by  the  element,  water;  and  by  the  act 
itself,  which  is  picturesque.  The  element,  water,  in 
which  the  complete  immersion  of  the  believer  takes 
place,  symbolizes  purification.  The  act  thus  sets 
forth  by  an  external  material  sign  an  inward  spiri- 
tual fact.  That  is.  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin. 

It  is  in  this  symbolic  sense  that  the  six  passages 
of  Scripture  commonly  involved  in  this  controversy 
ar-e  understood  by  the  Baptists.  It  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark that  of  these  six  passages  of  Scripture,  three 
definitely  refer  to  baptism  and  three  probably  refer 
to  it.  The  first  is  John  3  :o,  where  in  the  conversation 
with  ZS^icodemus  our  Lord  said:  ''Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Here  we  maintain  that  the  symbolic  mean- 
ing of  the  expression  is  to  be  taken.  A  man  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  spiritually,  and  of  the  water  only 
symbolically.  Regeneration  is  effected  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  it  is  typified  or  set  forth  by  baptism.  All 
this  has  been    said    on    the    supposition    that    the 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF   BAPTISM.  465 

passage  refers  to  baptism.  Most  commentators 
agree  that  it  does,  though  there  is  some  room  for 
difference  of  opinion,  and  some  have  held  that  bap- 
tism is  not  intended  here  at  all. 

The  next  passage  is  Acts  2 :38.  where  baptism  is 
distinctly  mentioned.  Peter  said  to  the  conscience- 
stricken  inquirers :  "Repent  ve.  and  be  baptized 
ever}'  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  unto 
the  remission  of  your  sins;  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  expression,  "unto  the 
remission  of  your  sins,"  may  be  joined  with  the  total 
conception  of  "repent  ye  and  be  baptized,"  or  being 
joined  with  "be  baptized''  only,  it  may  be  interpreted 
symbolically,  as  baptism  is  the  express  token,  given 
by  God.  of  repentance.  The  next  passage  is  Acts 
22:16.  where  Paul  is  describing  how  Ananias  came 
to  him  after  his  conversion  and  said:  "And  now 
why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calling  on  his  name."  Here  again 
the  symbolic  meaning  of  baptism  as  the  sign  of  a 
removal  of  sin,  is  to  be  understood.  Next,  in  Eph. 
5 :26,  we  have  a  passage  which  probably,  though  not 
certainly,  refers  to  baptism,  where  in  speaking  of 
the  church  the  Apostle  says  of  Christ  "that  he  might 
sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of 
water  with  the  Word."  Here  the  expr-ession  in  the 
original  is  "laver,"  the  same  that  is  used  in  the 
passage  in  Titus  soon  to  be  noticed, — "by  the  laver 
of  water."'  This  may  be  interpreted  as  being  only  a 
symbolic  reference  to  cleansing,  but  there  is  no  need 
to  deny  its  reference  to  baptism  as  setting  forth  the 
manner  in  which  the  people  of  God  were  sanctified. 
It  is  as  if  thev  were   inwardlv  washed   and  were 


466  ORDINANCES  OF  THE   CHURCHES. 

cleansed,  as  is  outwardly  signified  in  the  act  of  bap- 
tism. Next  is  the  similar  passage  in  Titus  3:5, 
where  baptism  is  spoken  of  as  ''the  washing  (or 
laver)  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.'-  Here  again,  some  deny  the  reference  to 
baptism,  but  we  need  not  hold  that.  Finally,  we  have 
the  famous  passage  in  I.  Pet.  3  :21  where  it  is  said : 
''Which  also  after  a  true  likeness  doth  now  save  you, 
even  baptism."  The  Apostle  is  very  particular  here 
to  say  "after  a  true  likeness;"  and  there  can  be  no 
question  that  he  does  not  refer  to  salvation  by  the 
mere  act  of  baptism,  but  only  to  the  symbolism  by 
which  salvation  is  represented  in  baptism. 

Of  course  it  is  possible  to  insist  on  the  literal 
sense  of  all  these  passages,  but  they  are  just  as 
easily  and  far  better  understood  in  a  symbolical 
sense.  The  language  of  Scripture  abounds  in 
figures.  We  have  reason  everj'where  to  apply  the  re- 
semblance of  natural  things  to  sipiritual  things. 
And  the  fact  that  the  Bible  teaches  the  necessity  of 
regeneration  apart  from  any  external  rite  or  cere- 
mony ought  to  make  it  plain  that  these  passages  are 
properly  understood  in  the  figurative  way.  Observe 
that  in  every  one  of  these  passages  some  accom- 
panying phrase  is  added,  lest  the  mere  external  act 
should  be  conceived  of  as  effecting  the  change  in- 
stead of  only  symbolizing  the  change.  Dr.  Hovey 
in  the  appendix  to  his  Commentary  on  John  (p.  423) 
says:  "According  to  the  teaching  of  John,  of  Christ 
and  of  his  Apostles,  the  function  of  baptism  is  not 
to  originate  the  new  life  of  faith,  but  to  represent 
the  origin  of  it." 

The  act  of  baptism  itself,  being  a  kind  of  burial 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF   BAPTISM.  467 

and  resurrection,  symbolizes  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  and  our  death  to  sin  and  resur- 
rection to  a  new  life.  This  teaching  is  involved  in 
Koni.  a  :4,  "We  were  buried  therefore  with  him 
through  baptism  into  death:  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life;" 
and  the  parallel  passage  in  Col.  2:12.  '"Having  been 
buried  with  him  in  bai)tism,  wherein  ye  were  also 
raised  with  him  through  faith  in  the  working  of 
Cod,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead."  To  interpret 
these  ])assages  to  mean  a  literal  burial  and  resur- 
rection would  of  course  be  absurd.  Why  then  should 
the  literal  meaning  of  baptismal  regeneration  be 
forced  into  it?  It  is  a  symbolical  death,  burial  and 
resurrection  that  are  described,  and  a  symbolical 
action,  therefore,  by  which  they  are  set  forth.  So 
much  for  the  symbolical  significance  of  baptism. 

Further,  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  a  declarative 
rite.  It  is  a  solemn  voluntary  act,  performed  after 
the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Lord.  The  baptism 
of  a  believer  is  the  declaration  of  his  faith  in  the 
Triune  God.  As  God  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  mani- 
fested himself  in  the  trinity  of  his  being,  so  did 
Christ  enjoin  (Matt.  28:19)  that  baptism  should  be 
'^into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Thus,  there  is  set  forth  the  general  be- 
lief in  God  as  a  loving  and  forgiving  Father  (John 
3 :16)  ;  as  the  atoning  Saviour  (John  3 :16,  and  many 
others)  ;  as  a  regenerating,  comforting  and  sanctify- 
ing Spirit  (John  3:5,8;  14:10;  Rom.  8:17).  This 
faith  more  particularly  involves  the  following 
things:    (a)    Experience;    that   is,    rei>entance.   the 


468  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

personal  acceptance  of  Christ  (Matt.  3:5,12;  Acts 
19:1-7;  Rom.  G:3)  ;  (b)  Obedience;  that  is,  submis- 
sion out  of  love  and  gratitude  to  the  positive  com- 
mand of  the  Lord  (Matt.  28:19;  John  11:15)  ;  (c) 
Consecration;  that  is,  devoted  allegiance  and  ser- 
vice to  the  Lord  ( Matt.  28 :19 ;  Rom.  6  :l-4,  Gal.  3 :27 ; 
Col.  2:12;  3:1).  Thus,  to  sum  up,  we  may  say  that 
according  to  the  Scriptures  the  act  of  baptism  does 
not  work  any  spiritual  change  in  the  recipient,  but 
is  symbolical  or  figurative  of  his  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit  of  God>  and  declarative  of  his  faith  in  God 
and  purpose  to  serve  him  through  Jesus  Christ  the 
Lord. 

This  view  of  the  significance  of  baptism  is  pre- 
sented in  a  number  of  Baptist  books;  and  particu- 
larly with  admirable  force  and  clearness  by  Dr. 
H.  H.  Tucker  in  his  sermon  on  "Baptism  in  the 
Christian  System"  in  the  volume  entitled  The  Old 
Theology  Restated.  There  is  also  a  book  on  the 
Design  of  Baptism,  by  the  late  Dr.  J.  A.  Kirtley; 
and  good  treatment  in  Dagg,  Strong  and  others. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  opposing  views,  we 
shall  have  to  say  that  these  have  the  disadvantage 
of  being  obscure,  confusing,  inconsistent  and  un- 
scriptural.  According  to  these  the  act  of  baptism 
is  in  part  symbolical  and  declarative,  but  is  also 
efficacious, in  some  spiritual  sense  or  senses.  Here 
is  the  knot  of  difficulty.  For  just  how  far  and  in 
what  exact  sense  or  senses  baptism  is  held  to  be 
spiritually  efficacious,  these  views  do  not  make  clear. 

We  notice  first  the  Roman  Catholic  position.  This 
assigns  a  saving  efficacy  to  the  ordinances  in  gen- 
eral.    The    Council    of  Trent    distinctly    declared 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF   BAPTISM. 


469 


{Session  vii.,  Canon  8)  :  "If  any  one  saith  that  by 
the  said  sacraments  of  the  New  Law  grace  is  not 
conferred  through  the  act  performed  {ex  opere 
operato),  but  that  faith  alone  in  the  divine  promise 
suffices  for  the  obtaining  of  grace,  let  him  be 
anathema."  Hence,  Romanists  hold  that  baptism  is 
essential  to  salvation  and  actually  effects  it  in  the 
recipient;  yet  when  pinned  to  the  logical  conse- 
quence of  this  position  they  will  try  to  explain  it 
away.  Moehler,  for  example,*  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Catholics  regarding  the  sacraments  in  general  says: 
"As  regards  the  mode  in  which  the  sacraments  con- 
fer upon  us  sancitifying  grace,  the  Catholic  Church 
teaches  that  they  work  in  us  by  means  of  their  char- 
acter as  an  institution  prepared  by  Christ, y  as  an 
instrument  for  our  salvation;  that  is  to  say,  the 
sacraments  convey  the  divine  power  merited  for  us 
by  Christ,  which  cannot  be  produced  by  any  human 
disposition,  by  any  spiritual  effort  or  condition,  but 
is  absolutely  for  Christ's  sake  conferred  by  God 
through  their  means."  Again,  ^Md'hlert  in  contrast- 
ing the  difference  between  the  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
positions  on  baptism,  thus  expresses  the  Roman  doc- 
trine :  "According  to  the  Catholic  doctrine,  original 
sin  in  children,  in  adults  original  sin  together  with 
actual  sins,  is  by  the  due  reception  of  baptism  re- 

mo^•ed So  that  the  belie\'Ter  having  become 

a  member  of  Christ  walketh  no  more  according  to 
the  flesh,  but  interiorly  quickened  by  the  divine 
Spirit  showeth  himself  a  new  man." 

*  Syinbolism,  Sec.  28. 

t  It  is  thus  that  he  explains  the  phrase  ex  opere  operalo. . 

X  Symbolism,   Sec.  32,  on  Baptism  and  Penance. 


470  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  Ang;lican  doctrine 
of  baptism.  The  general  doctrine  of  the  efficacy  of 
the  sacraments  as  set  forth  in  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles of  the  English  Church  is  as  follows  (Article 
XXV.)  :  "The  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  be  not 
only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men's  profession, 
but  rather  they  be  certain  sure  witnesses  and  ef- 
fectual signs  of  grace  and  God's  good  will  toward 
us,  by  the  which  he  doth  work  invisibly,  and  doth 
not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm 
our  faith  in  him."  Of  baptism,  Article  XXVII.  says 
that  "it  is  not  onlj^  the  sign  of  profession,  but  it  is 
also  the  sign  of  regeneration,  or  new  birth,  whereby 
as  by  an  instrument  they  that  receive  baptism  rightly 
are  grafted  into  the  church;  the  promises  of  our 
forgiveness  of  sin  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the 
sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost  are  visibly  signed 
and  sealed ;  faith  is  confirmed  and  grace  increased 
by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God."  This  language  is 
general,  vague  and  diplomatic  as  to  the  real  efficacy 
of  baptism.  The  doctrine  is  more  plainly  brought 
out  in  the  Anglican  Catechism,  where  to  the  ques- 
tion, "Who  gave  you  this  name?"  the  answer  is, 
"My  sponsors  in  my  baptism,  wherein  I  was  made  a 
member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God  and  an  inheritor 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  answer  to  the 
(piestion  concerning  the  number  of  the  sacraments 
is.  "The  only,  as  generally  necessary  to  salvation, 
that  is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord." 
While  the  language  of  the  Catechism  is  thus  more 
explicit  than  that  of  the  Articles,  it  still  admits  of 
being  explained  away  when  one  insists  that  it  teaches 
baptismal  regeneration.    If  jon  say  that  the  prayer 


SIGXIFTCAXCE  OF   IIAI'TISM.  471 

book  teaches  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
you  will  be  asked  to  define  ''necessary,"  and  your 
attention  will  be  called  1o  the  qualifying  word,  "gen- 
erally.'' If  you  .-^ay  that  the  candidate  for  confirma- 
tion declares  that  in  baptism  he  was  made  a  "mem- 
ber of  Christ,  a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  reply  may  be  made  tiiat  this  is 
said  only  of  connection  with  the  clmrcli,  and 
symbolically;  and  so  it  goes. 

No  doubt  one  of  the  best  expositions  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Anglican  Church  on  this  relation  of  bap- 
tism to  regeneration  is  found  in  the  discussion  of 
Waterland  on  Titus  3:4-6*.  He  takes  the  position 
that  our  Lord  in  John  3:5,  and  Paul  in  this  passage 
in  Titus,  mean  the  same  thing,  and  goes  on  to  say: 
"The  general  doctrine  both  of  our  Lord  and  Saint 
Paul  in  those  texts  is  that  water  applied  outwardly 
to  the  body,  together  with  the  grace  of  the  Spirit 
applied  inwardly  to  the  soul,  regenerate  a  man,  or  in 
other  words,  the  Holy  Spirit  in  and  by  the  use  of 
water  baptism  causes  the  new  birth."  "Every  one 
must  be  born  of  water  and  the  S])irit,  not  once  by 
the  water  and  once  of  the  Spirit,  so  as  to  make  two 
new  births,  or  to  be  regenerated  again  and  again, 
but  be  once  new  born  to  both,  once  born  of  the 
Spirit  in  or  by  water ;  while  the  Spirit  primarily  or 
effectually,  and  the  water  secondarily  or  instru- 
mentally,  concur  to  one  and  the  same  birth,  ordi- 
narily the  result  of  both  in  virtue  of  the  divine  ap- 
pointment." Waterland  goes  on  to  instance  the 
four  cases  of  adults,  infants,  apostates  and  hypo- 
crites, and  the  efl"ect  of  baptism  upon  each  class: 

*  Waterland's  Works,  Oxford  edition,  Vol.  IV.  427  f. 


472  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

(a)  In  regard  to  adults  repentance  and  faith  are  re- 
quired, *'but  according  to  the  ordinary  rule  faith 
and  regeneration  were  to  be  perfected  by  baptism 
both  in  the  making  regeneration  and  the  giving  of 
a  title  to  salvation."  (b)  In  regard  to  infants  the 
position  is  that  they  are  indeed  in  baptism  regen- 
erated and  made  Christians,  and  that  afterwards, 
if  they  show  any  signs  of  spiritual  life,  their  case 
is  like  those  who  fall  away  and  who  only  need  to  be 
renewed,  (c)  In  case  of  those  who  fall  away  after 
they  have  once  been  ^'savingly  regenerated"  it  is 
not  that  there  was  never  any  new  birth,  but  only  the 
loss  of  health  (p.  441).  "If  such  persons  fall  away 
by  desertion  and  disobedience,  still  their  baptismal 
regeneration  and  their  covenant  state  abide  and 
stand;  but  without  their  saving  efifect  for  the  time 
being."  (d)  In  "case  of  those  who  receive  baptism 
(like  Simon  Magus,  suppose)  in  hypocrisy,  or  im- 
pentience,  have  these  been  regenerated,  born  of  the 
Spirit?"  To  this  question  he  makes  answer,  "That 
is  a  point  which  I  apprehend  can  never  be  affirmed 
or  denied  absolutely,  but  with  proper  distinctions." 
The  Holy  Spirit  "some  way  or  other  has  an  hand  in 
every  true  and  valid  baptism ;"  as  he  "sanctifies  the 
waters  of  baptism,  giving  them  an  outward  and 
relative  holiness ;  so  he  consecrates  the  persons  alsc» 
in  an  outward  and  relative  sense;"  and  thus  "they 
must  be  supposed  to  have  pardon  and  grace  and  all 
gospel  privileges  conditionally  made  over  to  them, 
though  not  yet  actually  applied  by  reason  of  their 
disqualifications;"  but  if  they  repent,  "their  regen- 
eration begun  in  baptism  and  left  unfinished  comes 
at  last  to  be  complete."     Such  is  the  Anglican  doc- 


SIGXIFICAXCE  OF   BAPTISM.  473 

trine  as  expounded  bv  one  of  the  ablest  and  clearest 
theologians  of  that  school.  It  is  assuredly  neither 
scriptural  nor  clear. 

The  next  position  to  be  discussed  is  that  of  the 
Lutheran  Church.  This  does  not  materially  differ 
from  the  Anglican  view.  The  statement  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  is  more  explicit  than  that  of  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles.  It  is  as  follows  (Article  IX.)  : 
"Of  baptism  they  teach  that  it  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, and  that  by  baptism  the  grace  of  God  is  offered; 
and  that  children  are  to  be  baptized,  who  by  bap- 
tism being  offered  to  God,  are  received  into  God's 
favor.  They  condemn  the  Anabaptists  who  allow 
not  the  baptism  of  children,  and  affirm  that  children 
are  saved  without  baptism."  This  language  literally 
interpreted  is  plain  enough,  but  the  Lutheran  theo- 
logians explain  it  away  somewhat  (as  the  Catholics 
and  Anglicans  do)  when  its  literal  and  logical 
meaning  is  pressed  upon  them.  Thus  Dr.  Krauth* 
in  commenting  on  the  words,  "He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  says :  "We  are  not  to 
separate  what  God  hath  joined  together.  Who  shall 
be  saved?  (1)  He  only  that  believeth.  That  is  de- 
cisive against  the  idea  that  the  sacraments  operate 
apart  from  the  spiritual  state  of  the  recipient.  It  is 
the  deathblow  to  formalism;  the  deathblow  to  Rome 
and  to  Oxford  [High  Church  Anglicanism].  W^e  are 
justified  by  faith.  That  is  written  with  a  sunbeam 
in  the  words,  'he  that  believeth  .  .  .  shall  be  saved.' 
But  is  that  all  the  Saviour  said?  No!  He  adds, 
'And  IS  BAPTIZED,  shall  be  saved.'  Who  dares  read  a 
NOT  in  the  words  and  make  our  Saviour  say,  'He 

*  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  p.  553. 


474  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

that  believeth  and  is  not  baptized  shall  be  saved?' 
But  the  mau  who  says  that  baptism  is  in  no  sense 
necessary  to  salvation  does  contradict  the  words 
of  our  Lord."'  In  explaining  (p.  557  f.)  what  the 
Augsburg  Confession  means  by  "necessary  to  salva- 
tion," he  says.  "It  is  necessary  to  determine  what 
the  Confessors  meant,"  that  is,  to  explain  their  state- 
ment so  as  to  make  "necessary"  mean  only  "condi- 
tionally necessary"  and  not  "absolutely  essential." 
Baptism  is  not  water  baptism  only,  but  involves  the 
presence  of  the  word  and  the  Spirit,  so  that  there 
may  be  baptism  without  regeneration;  also  there 
may  sometimes  by  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God  be 
regeneration  without  baptism,  but  the  "ordinary 
rule"  is  that  baptism  is  necessary.  Xow  in  regard 
to  faith  being  necessary  to  salvation,  in  the  case  of 
adults  it  is  clear;  but  in  the  case  of  infants  the  view 
of  the  Lutherans  is  necessarily  confused  and  con- 
tradictory. Their  great  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  forces  them  to  the  conclusion  that  infants  in 
baptism  exercise  faith.  This  absurd  position  is  boldly 
stated  by  some  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  as 
quoted  by  Hodge,*  but  is  rather  indefinitely  and 
vaguely  put  by  Dr.  Krauth  in  the  following  lan- 
guagef :  "This  grace  [presumably  saving  grace, — 
salvation]  is  offered  whenever  baptism  is  admin- 
istered, and  is  actually  conferred  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
whenever  the  individual  receiving  it  does  not  pre- 
sent in  himself  a  conscious  voluntary  barrier  to  its 
efficacy.  This  barrier,  in  the  case  of  an  individual 
personally  responsible,  is  unbelief.     In  the  case  of 

.    *  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  liL.,  p.  6U8. 

t  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theolotjy,  p.  4.19. 


siGXiKicANft:  or  p..vrTisM.  475 

an  infant  there  i.^  no  conscious  volnntarv  barrier, 
and  there  is  a  divinely  wrought  receptivity  of  grace. 
The  objector  says  an  infant  cannot  voluntarily  re- 
ceive the  grace;  therefore,  grace  is  not  given.  We 
reverse  the  proposition  and  reply.  The  infant  cannot 
voluntarily  reject  grace;  therefore,  the  grace  is 
given.''  To  such  inipal]»able  dust  as  this  is  the  grand 
"article  of  a  standing  or  falling  church"  reduced 
under  the  upper  and  nether  millstones  of  infant  bap- 
tism and  bai)tismal  regeneration  I 

The  Presbyterian  or  Reformed  view  of  the  efficacy 
of  baptism  is  set  forth  at  length  by  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  in  his  ^ijstcmatic  Theology,  Vol.  iii.,  pp. 
579-004.  With  this  Presbyterian  denial  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  and  with  much  of  the  reasoning  by 
which  it  is  supported,  P>aptists  can  heartily  agree. 
But  when  Dr.  Hodge  states  positively  the  Presby- 
terian i)()sition  as  to  the  efficacy  or  meaning  of 
baptism,  we  are  able  to  agree  with  him  only  up  to  a 
certain  point.  His  doctrine  is  that  baptism  "is  in 
one  sense  the  condition  of  salvation,"  that  is,  it  "is 
the  necessity  of  precept  and  not  that  of  means." 
This  we  can  understand  and  accept  in  the  sense 
that  baptism  is  necessary  to  obedience.  "Baptism 
does  not  make  a  man  a  Christian, — it  is  the  ap- 
pointed means  of  avowing  that  he  is  a  Christian." 
"Baptism  is  a  duty."  This  he  argues  from  the  com- 
mand of  Christ,  from  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles, 
from  the  uniform  practice  of  Christians  in  all  ages, 
and  from  its  manifold  advantages.  So  far,  with 
some  exceptions  as  to  details,  we  may  agree.  Next 
he  argues  that  baptism  is  a  "means  of  grace."  This 
he  states  in  three  points,  with  the  first  of  whicli.  on 


476  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

our  own  understanding  of  the  terms,  we  may  agree, 
but  dissent  from  the  other  two:  (1)  "It  is  a  sign." 
If  this  is  equivalent  only  to  what  we  hold  as  to  the 
symbolic  teaching  of  baptism,  we  may  accept  it. 
(2)  ''Baptism  is  a  seal  or  pledge."  The  Scriptures 
do  not  so  declare.  This  is  only  an  inference.  We 
may  say  that  the  proper  performance  of  baptism  is, 
or  should  be,  an  impressive  reminder  of  God's 
gracious  promises;  but  where  is  it  taught  that  God 
himself  seals  those  promises  in  baptism?  (3)  "Bap- 
tism is,  ho^-ever,  not  only  a  sign  and  seal,  it  is  also 
a  means  of  grace,  because  in  it  the  blessings  which 
it  signifies  are  conveyed,  and  the  promises  of  which 
it  is  the  seal  are  assured  or  fulfilled  to  those  who  are 
baptized,  provided  they  believe."  Here  we  part 
company;  for  if  the  words  "conveyed"  and  "ful- 
filled" mean  what  they  ordinarily  mean  in  common 
speech,  this  doctrine  is  not  essentially  different  from 
the  Anglican  and  Lutheran  view,  which  Dr.  Hodge 
has  elsewhere  refuted.  Baptism,  according  to  Dr. 
Hodge,  is  a  sign  of  regeneration.  If  the  thing  signi- 
fied, that  is,  regeneration,  is  "conveyed"  in  baptism, 
wherein  does  this  differ  from  the  Anglican  doctrine? 
Baptism  is  a  "seal  or  pledge"  of  the  promise  of  salva- 
tion. If  this  promise  of  salvation  is  "fulfilled"  in 
the  act  of  baptism,  wherein  is  this  different  from  the 
Lutheran  position?  Nor  is  the  matter  helped  by 
inserting  the  saving  clause,  "provided  they  believe ;" 
for  the  Anglicans  and  Lutherans  both  make  faith  in 
the  recipient  the  condition  of  the  efficacy  of  the  rite. 
In  the  case  of  infants,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Anglican 
supposes  their  faith  by  the  representative  faith  of 
their  sponsors;  the  Lutheran,  by  boldly  affirming 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF   HAPTISM.  4:77 

that  somehow  thoy  have  faith;  but  the  Pi'esbyterian 
is  not  so  fortunate  as  either  of  the  others.  Hear 
Dr.  Hodge :  ''But  if  the  saving  benefits  are  suspended 
on  the  condition  of  faith  in  tlie  recipient,  what  bene- 
fit can  there  be  in  the  baptism  of  infants?"  To  a 
Baptist  this  seems  a  very  pertinent  question,  but 
we  must  not  in  fairness  omit  to  give  Dr.  Hodge's 
answer  to  it :  (1)  ''That  it  is  the  command  of  God." 
But  wiiere  is  the  proof  of  this  assertion?  (2)  "In- 
fants are  the  objects  of  Christ's  redemption, — they 
are  capable  of  receiving  all  its  benefits."  Even  if 
this  be  true  (as  in  a  general  sense  it  may  be  of  the 
first  clause,  and  in  a  qualified  presumptive  sense  of 
the  second)  the  question  is,  What  has  it  to  do  with 
baptism?  Are  all  who  are  the  "objects  of  Christ's 
redemption,"  and  "capable  of  receiving  all  its  bene- 
fits," therefore  and  without  anything  else  to  be  bap- 
tized?   Not  if  we  read  the  Scriptures  aright. 

We  are  to  observe  next  the  doctrine  of  the  Metho- 
dists on  this  point.  The  sixteenth  Article  of  the 
Methodist  Church  on  the  sacraments  is  in  the  first 
paragrayjh  almost  exactly  the  same  as  the  corre- 
sponding one  of  the  Anglican  Church,  from  which  it 
was  derived.  That  on  baptism  (Article  17)  says: 
"Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  a  mark 
of  difl'erence  whereby  Christians  are  distinguished 
from  others  that  are  not  baptized,  but  it  is  also  of 
regeneration,  or  the  new  birth.  The  baptism  of 
young  children  is  to  be  retained  in  the  church."  The 
forms  and  prayers  prescribed  at  the  administration 
of  baptism  do  not  throw  much  light  upon  the  sub- 
ject. The  congregation  are  exhorted  to  pray  "that 
God  will  grant  to  these  persons  (or  to  these  children 


478  ORDIXAXCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

in  case  of  infants)  what  bv  nature  they  cannot  have, 
that  they  may  be  baptized  with  water  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  received  into  Christ's  holy  church,  and 
be  made  lively  members  of  the  same."  This  language 
might  seem  to  imply  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation, or  the  engrafting  into  the  church,  and  is 
only  a  slightly  modified  form  of  that  of  the  Anglican 
Church.  But  the  Methodist  theologians  repudiate 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  do  not 
claim  even  that  baptism  is  ''a  means  of  grace"  in 
the  Presbyterian  sense.  Their  position,  therefore, 
as  to  the  significance  of  baptism  is  very  near  that 
of  the  Baptists;  that  it  is  simply  a  symbolical  and 
declarative  ordinance ;  for  thus  Ave  interpret  the  lan- 
guage of  their  Article  that  "baptism  is  a  sign  of 
regeneration  and  profession."* 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider  the  view  of  baptism 
held  by  that  body  of  Christians  who  call  themselves 
the  Disciples  of  Christ,  or  Christians,  but  are  known 
in  common  speech  as  Campbellites.  This  term  is 
not  here  used  with  any  disrespect,  but  simply  for 
definiteness. 

The  literature  of  the  Campbellite  controversy  is 
considerable.  It  has  been  published  in  many  news- 
paper and  magazine  articles,  in  debates  between 
disputants,  and  in  other  treatises  on  all  the  points 
in  dispute,  including  that  of  the  significance  of  bap- 
tism. A  recent  book  on  this  topic  is  by  Mr.  L.  B. 
Wilkes,  and  entitled  'The  Designs  of  Christian  Bap- 
tism." The  purpose  of  the  author  in  giving  the  sub- 
ject a  plural  form  is  indicated  on  pages  12,  32  and 
34  of  the  book.  He  holds  that  there  are  seA'^eraL 
*  Cf.  Summers'  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  354-356. 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF   KAPTLSM.  479 

designs  in  baptism  and  not  one  only.  His  laniinage 
at  page  32  is  as  follows:  "Baptism  was  no  doubt 
pnt  into  the  remedial  system  for  a  reason  or  reasons. 
Indeed  it  is  plainly  taught  in  the  Bible  that  there 
are  two  designs;  one  as  a  mere  ordinance,  or  as  a 
condition  in  order  to  a  specified  end.  In  this  case 
it  is  for  remission  of  sins.  Besides  this  it  is  a  sign 
or  symbol.  As  a  symbol  it  does  (and  it  was  so  in- 
tended to  do)  declare  a  burial  and  a  resurrection. 
As  a  mere  ordinance  or  condition  no  other  outward 
and  formal  thing  would  have  served  the  purpose  as 
well  as  the  thing  selected.  As  a  teaching  or  declara- 
tory symbol  nothing  else  than  baptism  would  have 
been  so  sufficient."  In  this  introductory  statenT^nt 
we  observe  that  in  part  what  has  been  laid  down  as 
the  Baptist  view  is  accepted,  and  the  difference  lies 
in  the  addition  wherein  baptism  is  said  to  be  de- 
signed also  as  a  ''condition  precedent  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  The  general  statement  of  Mr.  Wilkes' 
position  is  found  on  pages  13  and  14  of  the  Introduc- 
tion: ''The  reader  is  requested  to  note  carefully  and 
to  bear  in  mind  constantly  that  I  do  not  hold,  and 
that  I  do  not  attempt  in  the  following  pages  to 
prove,  that  baptism  has  any  virtue  in  itself  to  take 
away  sins.  God  only  has  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins;  therefore,  when  I  say  that  baptism  is  for  re- 
mission of  sins  I  do  not  mean  that  it  does  the  for- 
giving, but  that  God  forgives  the  sinner's  sins  in  it, 
or  that  God  has  put  baptism  as  a  condition  i)re- 
cedeut  to  the  remission  of  sins."  Another  statement 
is  made  on  page  57:  "What  is  the  meaning  of  the 
proposition,  Baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins? 
I  mean  by  it,  (1)  That  God  has  a  law  for  the  for- 


480  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

giveness  of  sins;  (2)  That  the  sinner  who  is  re- 
sponsible for  compliance  with  the  law  is  not  par- 
doned till  he  complies;  (3)  That  baptism  is  in  this 
law  of  God.  I  mean  to  assert  that  the  predicate  of 
the  proposition  is,  by  the  will  of  God,  so  related  to 
the  subject  that  it  must  be  affirmed  of  it,  and  not 
denied.  I  mean  that  remission  of  sins  is  conditioned 
in  the  law  of  God  upon  being  baptized.  I  mean  that 
one  of  the  purposes  or  designs  of  being  baptized  is 
remission  of  sins."  It  must  be  said  of  Mr.  Wilkes' 
book  in  general  that  its  tone  is  that  of  a  sincere  and 
candid  man  and  not  of  a  rancorous  controversialist. 
At  the  same  time  his  explanations  are  scarcely  suffi- 
cierrt;  for  the  logical  consequences  of  the  positions 
taken  must  be  insisted  on ;  yet  it  is  fair  to  accept  his 
statement  that  the  Disciples  do  not  usually  teach 
that  baptism  alone,  or  by  itself,  accomplishes  salva- 
tion. They  are  in  this  precisely  upon  the  same  plat- 
form with  the  Lutherans  and  Anglicans  who  insist 
that  faith  and  repentance  are  necessary  along  with 
baptism. 

The  position  of  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  himself 
on  the  significance  of  baptism  may  be  gathered  from 
his  book  on  Baptism,  and  from  the  Debate  ivith 
Rice,  and  his  other  works.  At  page  249  of  the  work 
on  Baptism,  in  speaking  of  John's  baptism  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  Mr.  Campbell  says:  "Nor  is  it 
only  casually  intimated  that  New  Testament  bap- 
tism was  ordained  for  this  purpose ;  for  it  is  the  only 
purpose  for  which  it  was  ordained,  whether  in  the 

hands  of  John,  or  of  the  twelve  Apostles It 

was  not  a  baptism,  but  the  baptism  of  repentance. 
It  was  not  for  remission  of  sins,  but  for  the  remis- 


SIGNIFICANCE  OF   P.APTISM.  481 

sion  of  sins.  The  fixtures  of  language  could  not 
more  safely  secure  the  intention  of  the  institution. 
It  was  not  because  .vour  sins  had  been  remitted,  but 
it  is  for  and  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins." 

In  the  report  of  the  debate  of  Mr.  Campbell  with 
the  Rev.  N.  L,  Rice  (p.  436),  in  comparing  Peter's 
language  at  Pentecost  with  that  in  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  ''he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,"  we  have 
the  following:  "Now  the  salvation  of  the  soul  be- 
ing distinguished  from  the  salvation  of  the  body, 
and  from  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  whole  man, 
must  simply  indicate  the  remission  of  sin,  its  guilt 
and  its  pollution.  And  so  it  would  seem  that  Peter 
and  Mark  must  have  been  guided  by  the  same  Spirit 
in  expressing  the  mind  of  Christ  under  the  remedial 
economy,  the  latter  by  connecting  it  with  salvation, 
and  the  other  with  the  remission  of  sins.  This 
harmonizing  of  the  two  witnesses  teaches  the  true 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  to-wit :  that  a  saved  man 
is  one  whose  sins  are  pardoned.  To  say,  then,  that 
a  sinner  is  saved,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  is 
pardoned.  He  that  is  pardoned,  is  saved,  and  he 
that  is  saved,  is  pardoned." 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Campbell's  language  in  some 
other  of  his  writings  appears  to  deny  the  necessary 
connection  between  remission  and  salvation,  and 
that  he  is  not  always  clear  upon  the  point.  That  of 
his  apologist  and  disciple,  Mr.  Lard,  in  his  Revi&iv 
of  Jeter's  Camphellism  Examined  is  more  explicit. 
On  page  183  Mr.  Lard  says:  ''Mr.  Jeter  maintains 
that  a  person's  sins  are  remitted  the  instant  he  be- 
comes a  penitent  believer,  and  consequently  before 
and  without  baptism.     From  this  we  dissent.     We 


482  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

believe  that  a  sinner,  though  a  believer,  is  still  re- 
quired to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  order  to  the  re- 
mission of  his  sins,  and  consequently,  that  they  are 
not  remitted  before  and  without  baptism."  Further, 
on  page  185  he  says:  "Where  salvation  is  promised 
to  a  person,  or  affirmed  of  him  on  certain  named  con- 
ditions, though  it  may  depend  on  more  conditions 
than  those  named,  it  can  never  depend  on  less." 
Further,  he  says :  "It  follows  that,  although  salva. 
tion,  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  remission  of  sins, 
may  depend  on  more  than  belief  and  baptism,  the 
two  named  conditions,  it  can  never  depend  on  less." 
In  speaking  of  Peter's  exhortation  in  Acts  2:38,  on 
page  193,  Mr.  Lard  further  says:  "Now  we  aflSrm 
that  this  passage  teaches  that  baptism  with  re- 
pentance ...  is  necessary  to  remission  of  sins^ 
that  it  makes  remission  depend  on  baptism  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  sense  in  which  it  makes  it  depend 
on  repentance,  and  that  a  connection  is  thus  es- 
tablished between  them  of  a  nature  so  permanent 
that  remission  is  in  all  cases,  previous  exceptions 
aside,  consequent  on  baptism  and  never  precedes  it." 
Now  as  Mr.  Lard  in  the  previous  quotation  has 
made  remission  and  salvation  synonymous  terms, 
he  appears  distinctly  to  teach  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary to  salvation.  Mr.  Campbell,  while  his  language 
strictly  interpreted  means  that,  yet  qualifies  it  in 
other  passages;  while  Mr.  Wilkes  denies  this  con- 
clusion, though  admitting  that  some  of  his  people 
taught  or  implied  it.  It  will  be  very  hard  for  a 
person  who  teaches  that  "baptism  is  a  condition 
precedent  to  the  remission  of  sins"  not  also  to  teach 
Ihat  it  is  a  condition  precedent  to  salvation.    And 


KIGNIFICAXCE  OF   FJAPTISiM,  483 

the  explanation  that  baptism  itself  does  not  accom- 
plish this,  but  is  only  the  necessary  instrument 
through  which  God  accomplishes  it,  is  the  same  ex- 
planation which  the  Roman.  Anglican  and  Lutheran 
theologians  all  make  when  pressed  in  the  same  way. 
We  may  perhaps  sum  up  by  saying  that  there  seem 
to  be  three  classes  among  the  Disciples:  (a)  Some, 
as  Mr.  Lard,  who  really  believe  that  baptism  and 
regeneration  are  the  same  thing,  and  that  remission 
of  sins,  or  salvation,  is  actually  received  in  bap- 
tism, and  not  until  the  person  is  baptized.  (  b)  Some 
who  are  not  clear  in  their  minds  and  not  exact  in 
their  language,  who  seem  to  hold  one  way  at  one 
time  and  another  at  another,  or  who,  like  Mr.  Wilkes, 
teach  that  baptism  is  symbolical  and  declarative, 
but  is  also  a  condition  precedent  to  remission  of  sins. 
(c)  Some  perhaps  who  hold  with  the  Baptists  that 
regeneration  is  the  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  that  re- 
pentance and  faith  come  before  baptism,  and  that 
salvation  is  dependent  on  these,  and  not  in  any  sense 
on  the  external  act,  which  is  only  symbolical  of  the 
change  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  is  necessary 
to  a  complete  obedience  to  Christ,  and  is  an  outward 
profession  of  faith  and  loyalty  to  him. 


484:  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  lord's  supper  IN  SCRIPTURE. 

I.  Passages  Describing  the  Institution  of  the  Rite. 

1.  Comparison  and  study. 

(1)  Relation  to  Passover. 

(2)  Meaning. 

(3)  Perpetuity. 

2.  Inferences,  as  to  frequency,  participants,  etc. 

II.  Passages  containing  allusion  or  mention. 

1.  Doubtful  allusions.    Several  passages. 

2.  Undoubted  mention. 

(1)  Survey  and  study. 

(2)  Inferences. 

(a)  As  to  i^articipants. 

(b)  As  to  observance. 

(c)  As  to  meaning. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  lord's  supper  IN  SCRIPTURE, 

Our  study  brings  us  now  to  the  other  great  ordi- 
nance of  the  Christian  religion.  Sometimes  this  is 
spoken  of  as  the  "communion."  As  this  name  refers 
only  to  a  subordinate  and  incidental  part  of  the  ob-. 
servance,  namely,  the  common  participation  of  those 
who  observe  the  rite,  it  is  not  a  fortunate  or  properly 
descriptive  term.  It  is  true  the  term  is  found  in 
I.  Cor.  10  -.W,  "The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not 
a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?"  But  the 
Revised  Version  gives  it  in  the  margin  more  cor- 
rectly "participation  in  the  body  of  Christ,"  and 
the  word  does  not  refer  to  the  fellowship  of  the 
brethren,  but  to  communion  with  Christ ;  so  that 
the  name  "communion"  is  based  upon  a  mistake, 
and  is  not  a  desirable  term.  Another  name  that  has 
been  given  to  it  is  the  "eucharist."  This  comes  from 
the  fact  that  our  Lord  "gave  thanks,"  and  the  Greek 
verb  describing  that  act  is  the  word  from  which 
"eucharist"  is  derived.  Afterwards  in  early  Chris- 
tian history  the  bread  and  wine  came  to  be  regarded 
as  thank  offerings,  and  so  the  name  "eucharist"  was 
held  to  be  appropriate  on  that  ground  also,  but  this 
was  clearly  an  unscriptural  usage;  so  that  the  ex- 
pression "eucharist"  is  open  to  some  objection. 
Neither  one  of  these  designations  is  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  can  be  justified  only  by  remote  inference 

485 


486  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

from  Scripture.  They  are,  therefore  unnecessary 
and  somewhat  misleading  terms,  and  there  is  no 
good  I'eason  why  they  should  be  used.  As  to  the 
Catholic  terms  of  "mass,"  "elevation  of  the  host," 
''unbloody  sacrifice" — these  are  far  out  of  the  range 
of  scriptural  or  appropriate  designations.  They  rest 
upon  churchly  and  not  upon  Biblical  usage.  One 
of  the  names  by  which  the  Scriptures  refer  to  the 
rite,  "the  breaking  of  bread,"  found  in  Acts  2:42 
and  in  20:7,  though  used  by  some,  has  never  been 
generally  appropriated  by  the  churches.  The  proper 
designation,  therefore,  for  this  sacred  ordinance  is 
that  which  is  used  by  the  apostle  Paul  (I.  Cor. 
11:20),  "The  Lord's  Supper." 

In  studying  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  shall  do  well 
to  pursue  the  same  course  as  in  regard  to  the  sub- 
jects considered  hitherto ;  that  is,  to  investigate  the 
Scripture  teachings,  the  developments  of  history,  and 
the  views  and  practices  of  the  churches  of  to-day. 
And  in  this  way  the  three  principal  topics  connected 
with  the  Lord's  Supper  will  be  brought  out,  namely, 
the  Meaning,  the  Participants,  the  Observance.  This 
chapter  deals  with  the  scriptural  teaching,  and  its 
purpose  is  to  present  with  care  all  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  bears  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  deriving  such 
inferences  and  applications  as  appear  to  be  justi- 
fied by  the  meaning  of  the  passages  themselves  and 
by  the  general  harmony  of  revealed  truth.  The  order 
observed  is  first  to  consider  the  Scriptures  which  de- 
scribe the  institution  of  the  Supper;  then  those  in 
which  it  is  brought  up  either  by  direct  mention  or 
remoter  allusion. 

The  Scriptures  in  which  the  institution  of  the  Sup- 


lord's  supper  in  scripture.  487 

per  is  described  are  Matt.  2G  :26-29 ;  Mark  14 :22-25 ; 
Luke  22:17-20,  and  1.  Cor.  11:23-26.  Of  these  ac- 
counts, tliose  in  Matthew  and  Mark  are  almost  ex- 
actly alike,  and  that  given  in  Luke  is  almost  the 
same  as  the  one  which  we  find  in  Paul's  letter  to 
the  church  at  Corinth.  Dr.  Broadus,  in  agreement 
with  Godet  and  others,  thinks  that  the  striking  ex- 
pression of  Paul  in  I.  Cor.  11 :23,  'Tor  I  received  of 
the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you," 
means  that  our  Lord  himself  gave  to  Paul  this  ac- 
count of  the  institution  of  the  Supper.  Whether  it 
was  in  the  vision  which  he  had  in  the  temple,  or  in 
some  other  special  revelation,  we  cannot  know. 

We  first  notice  the  relation  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  the  Pasover  meal.  As  a  devout  Israelite,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  habit  of  his  life  in  regard  to 
such  things,  our  Lord  would  celebrate  the  Passover. 
It  was  customary  for  the  people  to  arrange  them- 
selves in  companies  of  between  ten  and  twenty  to 
keep  the  feast  as  a  family.  It  was,  threfore,  per- 
fectly natural  that  our  Lord  and  the  twelve  Apostles 
should  constitute  such  a  company.  It  was  also 
customary  that  persons  living  in  Jerusalem  should 
permit  those  companies  to  have  rooms  to  meet  in 
without  charge.  Thus  Jesus  sent  Peter  and  John 
to  arrange  for  the  celebration  at  the  house  of  some 
one  in  Jerusalem.  The  name  of  the  man  is  not  given. 
They  were  told  to  go  into  the  city  and  follow  a  man 
whom  they  should  meet  bearing  a  pitcher  of 
water  to  the  home,  and  request  the  use  of  a  room 
for  the  Master  and  his  disciples.  The  two  disciples 
went  as  they  were  instructed,  made  all  the  necessary 
arrangements,  including  no  doubt  the  slaying  of  the 


488  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

lamb  at  the  temple  and  the  preparation  for  the 
feast  at  the  designated  house.  The  bread,  the  wine, 
the  bitter  herbs  and  the  other  things  customary  were 
all  provided.  At  the  appointed  time  our  Lord  and 
the  ten  others  arrived  to  join  these  two,  and  the 
feast  proceeded  probably  in  the  usual  order.  Jesus 
presided  and  acted  as  the  host,  or  father  of  the 
family.  We  need  not  follow  the  usual  details  of  the 
Passover  feast.  Some  of  the  Commentaries  and 
Lives  of  Christ  explain  these  details.*  Toward  the 
close  of  the  Passover  feast  proper,  and  doubtless 
after  the  traitor  Judas  had  left  the  company,-]-  our 
Lord  institutes  the  Memorial  Supper.  He  did  not 
use  the  whole  meal,  and  probably  not  any  part  of 
the  usual  Paschal  feast.  It  is  rather  to  be  supposed 
that  he  added  this  to  the  rest — only  used  the  bread 
and  wine  which  were  before  him.  Some  think,  how- 
ever, that  he  used  a  part  of  the  regular  Passover 
feast.  Be  this  as  it  may,  he  now  takes  a  loaf  and 
blesses  it,  and  with  this  act  enters  upon  what  is 
distinctive,  and  intended  to  be  perpetual,  in  the 
Christian  observance. | 

Let  us  now  consider  the  meaning  of  the  action 
and  of  the  emblems  which  our  Lord  employed. 
Matthew  says  that  he  "blessed"  the  loaf.  Luke  says 
he  "gave  thanks,"  as  also  Paul.  It  may  be  the  same 
act  differently  described :  that  the  blessing  included 
the  giving  of  thanks,  or  that  he  actually  did  both. 

*  Cf.  Life  of  Christ  by  Andrews,  Farrar,  Edersheim,  and 
the  Commentaries,  Broadus  on  Matthew,  Godet  on  Luke, 
Bliss  on  Luke,  and  others. 

t  Cf.  Broadus'  comment  in  loco. 

%  Cf.  Andrews'  Life  of  Christ,  p.  488. 


lord's  supper  in  scripture,  489 

As  Dr.  Broadus  explains,  "to  bless  the  loaf  is  of 
course  to  invoke  God's  blessing  upon  it,  to  ask  that 
God  will  make  it  a  means  of  blessing  to  those  who 
partake."  He  also  "brake  it."  This  was  for  the 
purpose  of  distributing  it  among  the  disciples  that 
all  might  partake.  The  idea  that  the  act  of  break- 
ing was  also  typical  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  the 
slaying  of  his  body,  is  derived  from  the  reading, 
"broken  for  you,"  in  I.  Cor.  11 :24.  The  best  authori- 
ties, however,  omit  "broken"  in  that  passage;  so 
that  it  is  not  wise  to  use  the  expression,  especially  to 
insist  upon  it  as  a  part  of  the  emblematic  signifi- 
cance of  the  loaf.  Then  he  said,  "Take,  eat;  this  is 
my  body."  Of  course,  this  language  is  figurative; 
equivalent  to  saying,  This  represents  my  body,  is  g, 
token  of  my  body;  and  it  is  strange  that  any  other 
interpretation  could  ever  have  been  put  upon  it. 
We  shall  see  hereafter  that  some  insist  on  the  literal 
meaning,  but  the  figurative  language  here  is  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  that  which  our  Lord  often  uses 
in  other  connections ;  as  in  John  10 :7,9,  he  says : 
"I  am  the  door;"  in  14:6,  "I  am  the, way;"  in  15:1, 
"I  am  the  true  vine ;"  and  more  to  the  point  still,  in 
6 :35,  "I  am  the  bread  of  life."  In  these  passages  we 
do  not  thiiiji  of  making  a  literal  interpretation.  The 
figurative  meaning  is  too  evident  for  the  other  to  be 
thought  of;  so  here  we  must  interpret  his  words  to 
mean.  This  represents,  stands  for,  is  a  picture, 
emblem,  token  of  my  body.  Paul  adds  the  words, 
"which  is  for  you,"  and  some  of  the  authorities  add 
in  Luke's  account,  "which  is  given  for  you,"  but  this 
reading  is  somewhat  uncertain.  This  means  that  the 
body  is  for  your  benefit, — it  is  used,  slain  for  your 


490  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

salvation.  And  then,  in  the  added  words,  ''This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me,"  our  Lord  enjoins  upon  his 
disciples  that  they  should  use  this  token  in  remem- 
brance of  his  sufferings  on  their  behalf.  The  lan- 
guage may  also  contain  reference  to  what  he  had 
said  of  himself  in  John  6:35,  ''I  am  the  bread  of 
life."  If  we  accept  the  reading  in  Luke,  ''which  is 
given  (or  being  given)  for  you,"  the  meaning  is  that 
he  M'as  the  bread  of  their  life,  the  sustaining  spiri- 
tual force  of  their  life,  in  process  of  being  offered 
up  as  a  sacrifice  to  God  on  their  behalf.  Dr.  Bliss 
says  the  "body"  is  probably  used  here  by  figure,  (as 
in  Rom.  12:1,  "Present  your  bodies  a  living  sacri- 
fice,") for  his  person,  himself.  Even  now  while  he 
speaks,  he  is  being  given  up  to  unspeakable  sorrow 
to  work  out  their  salvation,  and  this  bread  which 
he  holds  in  his  hands  and  distributes  among  them  is 
the  token  of  his  sacrifice  on  their  behalf. 

Next  he  took  the  cup  and  gave  thanks,  and  blessed 
-it  in  like  manner  as  the  bread,  and  passed  it  on  to 
them  that  they  all  might  drink  of  it.  It  was,  in 
accordance  with  the  usual  custom,  a  light  wine, 
probably  mingled  with  water.  In  giving  them  this 
he  calls  their  attention  also  to  the  symbolism  in- 
volved, "This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant."  It  was 
customary  in  ancient  times  to  seal  covenants  with 
the  shedding  of  blood.  The  covenant  between  God 
and  his  people  at  Sinai  was  ratified  by  sprinkling, 
the  book  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrificed  victims. 
The  blood  was  the  token  of  the  life,  and  the  shed- 
ding of  the  blood  was  the  life  spent,  or  poured  out, 
or  given  up;  and  so  here  the  blood  is  shed  -for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins,"  that  is,  for  the  remission, 


lord's  supper  IX  SCRIPTURE.  491 

or  pardon  of  the  siiis  of  many.  Many  would  enjoy 
the  forgiveness  and  putting  away  of  their  sins  be- 
cause of  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  or  the  giving  up 
of  his  life,  which  is  here  typified  by  this  poured  out 
wine.  In  the  record  of  Luke  and  Paul  the  covenant 
thus  ratified  is  described  as  "new."  In  Jeremiah 
31 :31-34,  God  had  promised  to  "make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel,"  and  this  was  to  be  not  like 
the  old  covenant,  but  inward,  spiritual,  written  on 
their  hearts,  and  was  to  involve  the  full  forgiveness 
of  their  sins.  It  may  be  that  our  Lord  refers  to  this 
prophecy,  and  is  fulfilling  it. 

In  regard  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  observance, 
there  is  some  indication  in  the  various  passages. 
According  to  Matthew  our  Lord  said,  "I  will  not 
drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine  until  that 
day  when  I  drink  it  new  with  you  in  my  Father's 
kingdom."  The  language  thus  points  forward  to  the 
final  consummation  of  his  kingdom  in  glory,  and 
the  implication  is  that  they  were  to  keep  on  observ- 
ing the  Supper  in  his  absence  until  he  should  come 
again.  Though  this  is  not  definitely  brought  out  in 
Matthew's  record,  it  is  made  clear  in  the  language 
of  Paul,  who  adds  (I  Cor.  11:26)  :  "For  as  often  as 
ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come."  The  command  of  the 
Lord  that  it  should  all  be  done  in  remembrance  of 
him  likewise  indicates  the  perpetuation  of  the  ordi- 
nance through  the  frequent  repetition  of  its  ob- 
servance. 

Besides  these  more  direct  and  clear  teachings, 
there  are  some  inferences  which  we  may  draw  from 
these  passages.    From  the  silence  as  to  details,  we 


492  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

may  infer  that  these  would  be  left  to  the  pious  dis- 
cretion of  those  who  were  to  observe  the  ordinance. 
It  is  not  specified  how  often  the  memorial  should 
be  celebrated.  Paul  simply  says:  "As  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  .  .  "  Whether  it  was  to  be  observed 
as  the  closing  part  of  the  Passover  meal  among 
Jewish  Christians,  or  was  to  be  among  any  Chris- 
+ians  connected  with  a  social  meal,  is  not  said. 

Nothing  is  commanded  here  as  to  the  posture  of 
the  participants,  or  the  place  of  observance;  nor 
does  it  necessarily  follow  that  the  bread  should  be 
unleavened  bread,  as  that  is  not  commanded,  being 
simply  a  custom  connected  with  the  Passover.  The 
preference  for  unleavened  bread,  however,  is  natural, 
and  there  is  nothing  against  it.  Nor  is  there  any- 
thing said  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  wine 
that  should  be  used.  Sanctified  good  taste  would 
surely  prefer  a  very  light  wine.  It  seems  to  have 
been  the  custom  at  the  Passover  to  mingle  the  wine 
with  water. 

Another  inference  is,  that  from  the  withdrawal 
of  Judas  and  the  presence  thus  of  none  but  true 
disciples,  only  real  Christians,  the  baptized,  the 
members  of  the  Lord's  own  flock,  should  partici- 
pate in  this  observance.  This  is  merely  suggested, 
but  is  confirmed  by  the  general  teachings  of  Scrip- 
ture. So  much  for  the  passages  which  describe  the 
institution  of  the  rite.  There  are  others  which 
allude  to  it,  and  these  will  now  claim  our  attention. 

We  first  notice  some  where  the  allusion  is  im- 
probable, or  at  best  extremely  doubtful.  One  is  the 
passage  in  John  G  :4:8-5S,  where  our  Lord  in  dis- 
coursing  with  the  multitude   in   the  synagogue  at 


lord's  STTPER  IX  SCRIPTITRE.  493 

Capernaum,  having  spoken  of  himself  as  the  bread 
of  life,  goes  on  to  say :  ''Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not 
life  in  yourselves.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and 
drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life.''  Some  have 
seen  here  a  prophetic  allusion  to  the  institution  of 
the  Supper  which  was  afterwards  to  take  place. 
Others  hold  that  the  eating  and  drinking  here  re- 
ferred to  is  a  continuous  process,  and  is,  therefore, 
not  properly  to  be  understood  of  the  Supper,  but 
of  daily  spiritual  communion  with  Christ;  and  this, 
upon  the  whole,  is  the  preferable  view\ 

Another  passage  sometimes  supposed  to  imply  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  Acts  27 :35,  where  after  the  long 
fast  on  board  ship  the  Apostle  Paul  persuades  his 
fellow- voyagers  to  eat, — "And  when  he  had  said  this 
and  had  taken  bread,  he  gave  thanks  to  God  in  the 
presence  of  all,  and  he  brake  it  and  began  to  eat." 
There  is  no  reason  to  see  any  reference  here  to  the 
Lord's  Supper, — it  is  simply  a  breaking  of  bread 
and  the  asking  of  Cod's  blessing  upon  it. 

Another  supposed  allusion  to  the  Supper  is  in 
Hebrews  13 :10,  "We  have  an  altar,  whereof  they 
have  no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the  tabernacle." 
The  passage  is  somewhat  difficult,  but  the  more 
probable  interpretation  of  the  "altar''  is  that  it  does 
not  refer  to  the  table  of  the  Lord,  but  either  to  the 
Lord  himself  (Speaker's  Commentary),  or  to  the 
cross  on  which  he  was  crucified  (Dr.  Kendrick,  in 
American  Commentary). 

There  are  some  other  passages,  however,  that  have 
plainer  allusion,  and  the  probable  mention  becomes 
almost  certain.     The  first  of  these  is  found  in  Acts 


494  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

2 :42,  '^\ud  they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostles' 
teaching  and  fellowship,  in  the  breaking  of  bread 
and  the  prayers ;"  and  in  yerse  46,  ''And  day  by  day, 
continuing  steadfastly,  with  one  accord  in  the 
temple,  and  breaking  bread  at  home,  they  did  take 
their  food  with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart, 
praising  God,  and  having  fayor  with  all  the  people." 
The  forty-sixth  yerse  perhaps  does  not  so  certainly 
as  the  other  refer  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  this 
is  the  common  opinion  among  interpreters.  It  says, 
''breaking  bread  at  home,"  as  the  Reyised  Version 
has  it,  though  the  rendering  of  King  James  is  also 
permissible,  "from  house  to  house."  Neander,  as 
referred  to  by  Hackett  on  the  passage,  thinks  that 
this  languag-e  indicates  a  division  of  the  disciples 
in  Jerusalem  into  a  number  of  small  companies 
which  met  in  different  houses  for  worship,  and  that 
in  connection  with  the  family  or  social  meal  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  commonly  observed. 

There  is  also  no  sufficient  reason  to  doubt  the 
reference  to  the  Supper  in  Acts  20:7,  "And  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  we  were  gathered 
together  to  break  bread,  Paul  discoursed  with  them, 
intending  to  depart  on  the  morrow;  and  prolonged 
his  speech  until  midnight."  After  the  uproar  at 
Ephesus,  Paul  went  to  Macedonia,  and  thence  re- 
turning into  Asia  Minor,  he  and  his  companions  re- 
mained a  week  at  Troas,  and  while  there  the  occur- 
rence narrated  took  place.  We  should  observe  that 
the  Revised  Version  gives  the  correct  text  here,  "we 
were  gathered  together,"  instead  of  "the  disciples 
were  gathered  together."  Of  course  the  "we"  in- 
cludes the  disciples,  the  resident  ones,  probably,  with 


lord's  supper  in  SCRIPTl'RE.  495 

the  visitors,  comprising  Paul  and  his  associates.  The 
question  has  sometimes  been  raised  whether  there 
was  a  church  at  Troas  or  not.  We  can  only  say  that 
most  probably  there  was,  but  if  not  the  presence  of 
the  Apostle  Paul  gave  all  necessary  authority  for 
the  observance.  An  interesting  thing  here  is  that 
this  observance  occurs  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
in  connection  with  what  seems  to  have  been  the 
habitual  worship,  as  if  the  celebration  gave  both 
name  and  purpose  to  the  assembling  for  worship. 

There  are  two  highly  important  passages  in  Paul's 
first  letter  to  the  church  at  Corinth,  where  there  is 
direct  mention  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  ap- 
propriate instructions  are  given  in  regard  to  its 
suitable  observance.  The  first  one  is  1  Cor.  10  :1G,17, 
and  is  as  follows:  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we 
bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  (margin,  participation) 
of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break, 
is  it  not  a  communion  (or  participation)  of  the  body 
of  Christ?  seeing  that  we,  who  are  many,  are  one 
bread,  one  body :  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread." 
The  whole  context  here  is  important  to  understand 
the  words.  The  Apostle  has  been  arguing  against 
the  propriety  of  eating  meat  which  had  been  offered 
to  idols.  There  was  danger  that  those  who  did  so 
might  be  led  into  idolatry,  by  association  of  ideas. 
He  contrasts  their  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
with  the  heathen  idolatrous  feasts.  This  brings  him 
to  speak  of  both  the  cup  and  the  bread.  Here  a  com- 
munion or  fellowship  occurs,  but  as  has  been  re- 
marked, it  does  not  seem  to  mean  the  fellowship 
with  one  another,  but  the  participation  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  as  he  himself  means  in  the 


496  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

passage  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  which  was  dis- 
cussed elsewhere;  that  this  body  and  blood  of  his 
were  symbolized  in  the  elements  of  the  Lord's  Sup^ 
per.  The  partaking  of  them  was  thus  the  portraiture, 
or  representation  of  a  spiritual  partaking  of  him. 
This  is  put  in  contrast  with  the  communion  with 
demons,  "Ye  canoot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  cup  of  demons:  ye  cannot  partake  of  the  table 
of  the  Lord,  and  the  table  of  demons."  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  here  emphasized  as  a  distinctive  service  of 
the  Christian  religion,  and  its  true  spiritual  nature 
is  very  earnestly  insisted  upon.  The  passage  contains 
a  warning  that  those  who  partake  should  be  exceed- 
ingly circumspect.  A  worldly  or  idolatrous  life  is 
wholly  inconsistent  with  a  proper  participation  in 
the  Lord's  Supper;  indeed  this  would  be  impossible, 
if  there  were  real  communion  with  him,  such  as  is 
indicated  in  the  text.. 

The  other  passage  is  I.  Cor.  11 :17-31.  In  studying 
it  we  should  remember  that  Paul  was  writing  to 
correct  certain  grave  errors  both  of  doctrine  and  of 
conduct  into  which  some  of  the  Christians  at  Corinth 
had  fallen,  and  among  these  was  the  way  in  which 
they  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Apostle  tells 
them  that  when  they  come  together  for  worship,  so 
great  was  their  disorder  that  it  was  not  possible  to 
eat  the  Lord's  Supper  in  any  proper  way;  for  in 
their  eating  one  Avould  take  before  another  his  own 
supper,  and  while  one  would  be  hungry,  another 
would  sometimes  be  drunken.  This  indicates  that 
they  observed  it  as  a  social  meal,  or  in  connection 
with  a  social  meal,  and  that  their  festivity  was  more 
secular  than  spiritual,  virtually  destroying  the  ordi- 


lord's  supper  in  scripture.  497 

nance.  He  sharply  reproves  them  for  this  disorder, 
and  then  gives  his  account  of  how  our  Lord  insti- 
tuted the  Supper. 

He  then  makes,  in  tlie  27th  verse,  the  solemn 
statement,  '"Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread 
or  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be 
guilty  of  the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord."  In 
making  a  riotous  banquet  in  connection  with  the 
Lord's  Supper,  these  Corinthians  did  away  with  its 
real  purpose.  The  prime  object  of  the  Supper  being 
to  recall  the  loving  sacrifice  of  Christ,  any  celebra- 
tion of  it  which  does  not  have  that,  and  that  su- 
premely, in  view  is  an  unworthy  one.  He  who 
takes  the  Lord's  Supper  for  personal  gratification, 
or  for  any  other  reason  than  devoutly  and  grate- 
fully to  remember  the  Lord,  eats  and  drinks  un- 
worthily; so  the  Apostle  exhorts  that  a  man  should 
examine  himself  as  to  his  motives  for  so  doing;  for 
he  who  eats  unworthily,  eats  and  drinks  condemna- 
tion, or  judgment,  upon  himself;  that  is,  he  who 
eats  or  drinks  for  the  gratification  of  bodil}^  ap- 
petite, or  for  pride  and  riotous  indulgence,  or  for 
any  other  evil  motive,  rather  than  for  the  purpose  of 
remembering  the  Lord's  loving  work,  brings  con- 
demnation on  himself,  incurs  the  displeasure  of  the 
Lord.  Now  this  is  made  perfectly  plain  by  the  ex- 
planatory clause,  "not  discerning  the  Lord's  body." 
He  eats  unworthily  who  does  not  see  in  the  bread 
which  he  eats  an  emblem  of  the  Lord's  body  given 
for  him.  This  is  the  evident  meaning  of  the  passage 
as  a  whole.  ]More  particularly  let  us  examine  the 
expression,  "Whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread  or  drink 
the  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of 


498  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  QHURCHES. 

the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord."  Notice  here,  as 
a  matter  of  simple  grammar,  that  the  word  "un- 
worthily" does  not  and  cannot  describe  the  person 
who  eats  and  drinks,  but  describes  the  act  of  eating 
and  drinking.  This  will  be  plainer  if  we  adopt  the 
rendering  of  the  American  revisers,  "in  an  unworthy 
manner;"  so  what  the  Apostle  means  is  that  he  is 
guilty  who  celebrates  the  Supper  in  an  unworthy 
manner,  that  is,  in  a  manner  out  of  keeping  with 
the  solemn  and  blessed  meaning  of  the  ordinance. 
It  refers,  therefore,  only  remotely  and  secondarily 
to  the  state  of  the  person  who  partakes,  and  not  at 
all  to  his  feelings  of  personal  unworthiness  in  the 
sight  of  God. 

The  other  part  of  the  verse  also  calls  for  explana- 
tion. What  is  meant  by  the  expression,  "guilty  of 
the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord"?  The  word 
"guilty"  is  used  in  three  ways:  (1)  In  regard  to 
the  crime  committed,  as  guilty  of  murder,  theft,  or 
anything  of  that  sort.  This  is  the  common,  and 
with  us,  the  almost  exclusive  use  of  the  term.  (2) 
But  in  the  New  Testament  we  find  that  it  is  some- 
times used  with  reference  to  the  punishment  to  be 
inflicted,  as  "guilty  of  death,"  that  is  guilty  enough 
to  be  put  to  death  (Matt.  26:66).  (3)  Again,  it 
is  used  in  regard  to  the  thing  or  person  sinned 
against,  as  in  the  expression  "guilty  of  the  whole 
law,"  that  is,  of  breaking  the  law  (Jas.  2:10).  This 
last  is  of  course  the  meaning  here.  The  one  who 
eats  and  drinks  unworthily  is  guilty  in  regard  to 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, — he  has  sinned  in 
not  perceiving  and  appreciatiing  this  ordinance  in 
its  true  and  solemn  significance  of  setting  forth  the 


J^OP.d's  supper  IX  SCRIPTURE.  499 

sacrificed  body  and  the  shed  blood  of  his  Lord  and 
Redeemer.  In  this  connection  we  should  recall  the 
remarkable  passage  in  Jude  12,  where  even  worse 
conduct  is  rebuked,  and  evil  intruders  are  called 
"spots  (or  hidden  rocks)  in  jour  love-feasts;"  but 
the  reference  is  not  certainly  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider  some  inferences 
which  may  be  drawn  from  the  passages  we  have 
studied.  In  regard  to  the  participants  it  is  clear 
that  only  baptized  believers  were  intended  to  take 
part  in  this  observance.  The  reference  is  clearly  to 
the  meeting  together  of  the  church  at  Corinth  for 
the  purpose  of  worship,  and  in  connection  with  that 
the  celebration  of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  It  is  true, 
as  we  have  seen,  that  they  held  it  in  connection  with 
the  social  meal,  at  which  some  disorders  were  un- 
happily indulged  in;  but  still  they  are  addressed  as 
Christians,  who  ought  to  turn  away  from  their  in- 
consistencies and  celebrate  the  memorial  ordinance 
with  entire  propriety. 

In  regard  to  the  observance  of  the  Supper,  some 
of  the  details  are  to  be  noted.  The  place  is  indicated 
to  have  been  different  from  their  own  homes:  for  the 
Apostle  asks:  "What,  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat 
and  drink  in?"  There  must  have  been,  therefore, 
some  common  place  of  meeting  where  they  met  for 
worship  and  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
This  appears  also  in  the  use  of  the  upper  room  at 
Troas,  where  the  disciples  met  together. 

In  regard  to  the  frequency  of  the  observance,  we 
have  various  indications.  In  Acts  2:42,46,  it  seems 
to  have  been  every  day.  At  Troas  it  appears  to  have 
been  everv  week — on  the  Lord's  day, — the  first  day 


500  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

of  the  week.  At  Corinth  there  is  no  note  as  to  the 
frequency.  As  to  the  manner  of  the  observance,  in 
Acts  2 :46  it  seems  to  have  been  in  their  homes,  and 
possibly  in  connection  with  domestic  worship,  others 
being  gathered  in.  At  Troas  the  indications  are 
that  "breaking  bread"  was  a  part  of  the  regular 
worship;  for  in  connection  with  it  Paul  went  on 
with  his  preaching  far  into  the  night.  The  passages 
impress  us  with  the  importance  of  seemliness  and 
devoutness  in  the  observance  of  this  sacred  rite. 

The  inference  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  ordinance 
is  very  clear  and  definite.  It  is  distinctly  and  pre- 
eminently a  memorial  observance  in  regard  to  the 
great  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  atoning  work  of  the 
Redeemer.  Other  things  may  be  subsidiary  to  this, 
as  worship  and  fellowship,  but  this  is  the  main 
thing.  Any  other  use  of  this  observance  would  be 
to  some  extent,  and  more  or  less  according  to  circum- 
stances, unworthy.  In  all  cases  we  must  "discern 
the  body,"  that  is,  we  must  perceive  the  right  mean- 
ing of  the  ordinance,  and  keep  it  in  the  spirit  of 
that  sacred  intent. 


LORD^S  SUPPER  IN  HISTORY.  501 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  lord's  supper  IN  HISTORY. 

I.  The  Meaning. 

1.  Memorial  and  symbolic.     Never  wholly  lost 

sight  of. 

2.  Sacrificial. 

(1)  Origin  and  growth. 

(2)  Catholic  developments. 

(a)  Adoration  of  the  host. 

(b)  Masses  for  the  dead. 

3.  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. 

(1)  Patristic  views. 

(2)  Mediaeval  Catholic  doctrine. 

(3)  Ideas  in  the  Greek  Church. 

4.  Efficacy.    Compare  views  on  baptism, 

II.  The  Participants. 

1.  The  usual  practice. 

(1)  The  baptized  only. 

(2)  Good  standing  also  required. 

2.  The  English  Baptist  exception. 

(1)  Early  Baptist  practice  no  exception. 

(2)  Rise  of  open  communion. 

III.  The  Observance. 

1.  Worship.     Development  of  ritual. 

2.  Frequency.    Practice  varied. 

3.  Some  details. 

(1)  Love  feasts. 

(2)  Posture,  etc. 

(3)  Withholding  wine  from  laity. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  LORD^S  SUPPER  IN  HISTORY. 

As  IN  case  of  the  twin  ordinance  of  baptism,  there 
have  been  interesting  historical  developments  in  the 
belief  and  practice  of  Christians  in  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Slipper.  Some  of  these  customs  have  fallen 
out  of  use,  others  have  persisted,  and  survive  in 
various  forms  among  the  different  divisions  of  pro- 
fessed Christians.  Along  with  this  progresss  of 
views  and  observance  there  has  been  the  inevitable 
accompaniment  of  controversy.  It  is  sad  that  the 
most  sacred  rite  of  the  Christian  religion  should 
have  been,  and  should  continue  to  be,  the  subject  of 
angry  polemics  among  those  who,  in  this  holy  ordin- 
ance, profess  to  commemorate  the  dying  love  of  their 
common  Redeemer  and  Lord.  Yet  we  should  not 
forget  that  the  very  importance  and  sacredness  of  the 
rite  led  to  earnest  attack  upon  errors  regarding  it. 
No  elaborate  account  of  these  controversies  will  here 
be  attempted.  The  student  is  referred  to  works  on 
Christian  Archaeology,  Church  History,  and  System- 
atic Theology  for  more  complete  discussion.*  The 
plan  of  treatment  will  be,  not  to  divide  into  periods 
as  before,  but  to  present  the  matter  rather  by  sub- 
jects, as  the  belief  and  practice  of  Christians  de- 
veloped through  the  centuries,  and  as  they  present 

*  The  practices  of  the  first  four  or  five  centuries  are  well 
described  in  Bingham's  Antiquites,  b.  xv.  See  also  Stanley's 
Christian  Institutions,  and  the  Church  Histories. 

502 


lord's  supper  in  history.  503 

themselves  to  day.  In  this  chapter  we  study  the 
history,  touching  upon  the  Meaning,  the  Partici- 
pant, and  the  Observance  of  the  Supper,  through 
the  centuries. 

The  meaning  of  the  Supper,  as  unfolded  and  ex- 
emplified in  history  presents  a  subject  which  ought 
to  be  carefully  studied,  both  for  its  inherent  in- 
terest and  for  its  momentous  effect  upon  the  external 
character  of  Christianity,  as  shown  in  the  various 
churches  and  organizations.  Theories  of  the  mean- 
ing cluster  around  three  essential  points:  the  me- 
morial and  symbolic  character  of  the  ordinance,  the 
sacrifical  conception  of  it,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  consecrated  elements. 

In  respect  to  the  first  of  these,  let  it  be  said  that 
the  symbolic  and  memorial  character  of  the  ordi- 
nance has  nerer  been  wholly  lost  sight  of.  The 
changes  have  been  made  in  the  way  of  additions  to 
this  scriptural  idea,  and  of  perversion  of  it.  They 
have  not  amounted  to  a  denial  of  the  original  and 
scriptural  intent  of  the  rite.  Well  may  we  say  with 
Stanley:*  "That  so  fragile  an  ordinance  should  have 
survived  so  many  shocks,  so  many  superstitions,  so 
many  centuries,  is  in  itself  a  proof  of  the  immense 
vitality  of  the  religion  which  it  represents,  of  the 
prophetic  foresight  of  its  Founder."  In  it,  through 
many  strange  lands  and  places  and  times;  through 
many  hurtful  errors  and  surprising  misconceptions 
and  unauthorized  additions;  through  many  variously 
organized  assemblies  of  those  who  professed  Christ 
as  their  Saviour;  through  all  the  noisy  din  of  un- 
seemly disputation  and  strife,  the  immortal  words  of 

*  Christian  Institutions,  Harper's  edition,  p.  59. 


504  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

our  Lord  are  heard:  'This  is  my  body  which  is  for 
you ;  .  .  .  This  is  my  blood  which  was  shed  for  the 
remission  of  sins;  .  .  This  do  in  remembrance  of 
me." 

The  sacrificial  conception  of  the  Supper  early 
came  to  be  held  in  the  Catholic  Church,  and  has  been 
a  very  presistent  and  harmful  addition  to  the  true 
scriptural  idea.  Many  Protestants — Lutherans  and 
Anglicans,  and  even  some  Presbyterians — hold,  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent,  that  the  idea  of  a  sacrifice  or 
offering  to  God  is  contained  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
They  consider  it  the  fulfillment  of  the  type  contained 
in  the  Passover  lamb,  and  with  that  comes  also  the 
notion  of  offering  ourselves  to  God  in  the  observance 
of  the  ordinance.  There  is  not,  however,  any 
scriptural  warrant  for  even  this  simplest  form  of 
the  sacrificial  conception  of  the  Supper.  It  is  a  sym- 
bolic memorial  of  the  great  sacrifice  of  Christ,  but  is 
not  itself  such  a  sacrifice  or  offering  to  God.  Some- 
how in  the  early  centuries  men  began  so  to  regard 
it.*  At  first  it  was  the  idea  of  a  thank-offering  with 
which  the  name  of  eucharist,  derived  from  our  Lord's 
giving  thanks  and  blessing  the  cup,  was  in  natural 
harmony ;  for  the  word  also  denotes  a  thank-offering. 
It  was  the  custom  among  the  early  Christiansf  to 
bring  thank-offerings  to  the  altar  in  connection  with 
the  celebration  of  the  Supper.  From  these  offerings 
gifts  were  made  to  the  poor,  and  also  the  bread  and 
wine  used  in  the  Supper  were  selected.  Out  of  these 
Thank-offerings  came  also  the  idea  of  offering  up  one- 

*  Cf.  Schaff's  Church  History,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  245  f. 

t  Cf.  Bingham's  Antiquities,  b.  xv.,  ch.  ii.,  §M,  2,  5:  ch.  iii. 


i-okd's  suiter  in  iiistoky.  505 

self,  that  of  renewed  consecration.  Now,  when  once 
this  idea  of  the  Supper — as  a  sacrifice  or  offering — 
was  introduced,  along  with  its  development  there 
was  corresponding  growth  in  the  belief  of  a  real 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  elements;  and  thus  the 
notion  that  the  Supper  was  a  repetition  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  of  himself  took  firm  and  final  hold  of  the 
Catholic  mind.*  It  was  designated  the  "unbloody 
sacrifice,"  and  a  pious  Catholic  was  led  to  believe 
that  in  the  "sacrifice  of  the  mass,"  as  it  came  to  be 
called,  our  Lord  was  actually  offered  up  for  him  as  a 
sacrifice  for  sin.  From  this  followed  two  other  very 
hurtful  errors.  One  was  what  is  known  as  the 
"adoration  of  the  host,"  and  the  other  the  celebration 
of  "masses  for  the  dead." 

The  word  "host"  is  not  at  all  connected  with  the 
ordinary  English  word  for  an  army,  but  is  derived 
from  the  Latin  word  Jiostia — a  victim,  an  animal 
sacrificed.  The  consecrated  wafer  being  regarded  as 
the  actual  Christ,  was  looked  upon  as  the  sacred 
victim,  or  offering;  and  hence,  when  this  was  elevat- 
ed or  lifted  up  in  the  hands  of  the  priest,  he  held  in 
his  hands  Christ  himself,  who,  as  being  thus  present, 
was  regarded  as  the  object  of  legitimate  worship. 
This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  elevation  and  adoration 
of  the  host. 

The  English  word  "mass,"  and  the  German  messe, 
are  corruptions  in  popular  speech  of  the  Latin  missa, 
by  which  name  the  service  is  always  called  in  the 
Roman  Church.  Now,  this  word  missa  is  derived 
from  a  practice  in  the  worship  of  the  early  church. 

*  Cf.  Schatf,  Church,  History,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  504;  also  Vol.  iv., 
pp.  397,  398. 


506  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

At  a  certain  point  unbelievers  were  requested  to  with- 
draw, that  is,  the  general  congregation  was  sent 
away,  or  in  Latin,  missa  est.  At  another  stage  the 
catechumens  and  penitents  likewise  retired,  and  to 
the  Supper  itself  only  baptized  believers  were  allow- 
ed to  remain,  all  others  having  been  dismissed.  From 
this  dismission,  the  service  in  which  believers  only 
participated  came  to  be  called  missa  ■fidelium,  or  the 
"missa  of  the  faithful";  and  then  by  pre-eminence 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  came  to  be  call- 
ed missa,  or  mass. 

Celebrating  masses  for  the  dead  grew  out  of  one  of 
the  prayers  that  was  offered  in  consecrating  the  holy 
elements.  It  was  customary  for  the  worshipers  when 
they  made  their  offerings  at  the  altar,  to  pray  not 
only  for  themselves,  but  for  the  whole  church  uni- 
versal, both  believers  on  earth  and  those  who  had 
departed.  These  prayers  for  the  dead  arose  very 
early  in  Christian  history.  It  was  thought  that  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  being  offered  again  every  time  the 
mass  was  celebrated  would  avail  to  help  the  souls  of 
departed  saints;  and  out  of  this  notion  have  come 
all  the  errors  concerning  purgatory  and  masses.* 

The  next  important  error,  which  went  hand  in 
hand  with  the  former,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  consecrated  elements.  Very 
soon  the  notion  obtained  that  in  the  bread  and  wine 
used  in  the  commemorative  Supper,  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  were  not  only  symbolized,  but  were  in 
some  sense  actually  present.  As  early  as  the  time  of 
Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  germs  of  this 
doctrine  begin  to    appear.     The    Council  of    Trent 

*  Schaif,  Church  History.  Vol.  iv.,  p.  398. 


lord's  SUri'ER  IX   HISTORY.  507 

declared  that  the  church  of  God  had  always  from  the 
beginning  held  this  view,  seeing  in  these  somewhat 
mystic  and  vague  statements  of  the  early  Fathers  a 
positive  declaration  of  the  later  dogma  of  transub- 
stantiation.*  But  while  it  may  be  granted  that 
these  writers  held  mystical  views  of  the  saving 
eflScacy  of  the  eucharist,  and  that  their  utterances 
lean  in  the  direction  of  the  real  presence,  it  cannot  be 
held  that  their  views  were  clear.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
makes  use  of  such  language  as  the  following :  ''Under 
the  type  of  the  wine  is  given  to  thee  the  blood ;  that 
thou  mayest  be  a  partaker  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  and  of  one  body  and  blood  with  him."  "After 
the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  bread  of  the 
Eucharist  is  no  longer  bread,  but  the  body  of 
Christ."f  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  even  Chrysostom, 
though  in  his  peculiar  rhetorical  fashion,  likewise 
leaned  to  this  view.  Bingham  quotes  the  prayer  of 
offering  as  given  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions, 
but  this  was  a  later  work  containing  how  much  of 
earlier  liturgical  forms  it  is  impossible  to  say.S  The 
language  of  the  petition  is :  "And  we  beseech  thee  to 
look  propitiously  upon  these  gifts  here  set  before  ^ 
thee,  and  to  accept  them  favorably  to  the  honor  of 
thy  Christ,  and  to  send  thy  Holy  Spirit  upon  this 
sacrifice,  the  Spirit  that  is  witness  of  the  suffering  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  that  it  may  make  this  bread  become 
the  body  of  Christ ;  that  they  who  partake  of  it  may 
be  confirmed  in  godliness  and  obtain  remission  of 
sins." 

*  Cf.  Schaff's  Church  History.  Vol.  iii.,  p.  492  f. 

t  Quoted  by  Schaff,  1.  c. 

X  Cf.  Bingham,  b.  xv.,  ch.  iii.,  ^  11. 


508  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

This  idea  kept  gaining  ground  througli  the  centu- 
ries, that  somehow  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord 
were  really  in  the  bread  and  wine,  and  that  thus  he 
was  actually  offered  anew  in  sacrifice  and  actually 
partaken  of  by  the  participants  in  the  Supper. 

In  the  ninth  century  the  two  leading  views,  one  of 
a  spiritual  presence,  the  other  of  a  "real,"  or  ma- 
terial, presence,  resulted  in  controversy.*  In  the 
language  of  Dr.  Schaff:  "Paschasius  Radbertus 
(from  800  to  about  805),  a  well-known,  devout  and 
superstitious  monk,  and  afterwards  abbot  of  Corbie, 
or  Corvey,  in  France,  is  the  first  who  clearly  taught 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  as  then  believed 
by  many  and  afterwards  adopted  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  He  wrote  a  book  'on  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Lord,'  composed  for  his  disciple  Placi- 
dus,  of  New  Corbie,  in  the  year  831,  and  afterwards 
re-edited  it  in  a  more  popular  form,  and  dedicated  it 
to  the  Emperor,  Charles  the  Bald,  as  a  Christmas 
gift  (844).  He  did  not  employ  the  term  transubstant- 
iation, which  came  not  into  use  until  two  centuries 
later,  but  he  taught  the  thing,  viz.,  'that  the 
substance  of  bread  and  wine  is  effectually  changed 
into  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ';  so  that  after 
priestly  consecration  there  is  'nothing  else  in  the 
eucharist  but  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  although 
the  figure  of  bread  and  wine  remain  to  the  senses  of 
sight,  touch  and  taste.'  "  He  defended  his  theory  by 
the  usual  arguments,  from  the  Scripture,  and  also 
from  tradition;  but  he  had  as  an  opponent  Ratram- 
nus,  who  was  also  a  monk  at  Corbie.    He,  according 

*  Schaff,  Vol.  iv.,  p.  544  f. 


LORD^S  SUPPER  IN   HISTORY.  500 

to  Schaff,  was  the  first  to  give  the  symbolical  theory 
a  scientific  expression,  and  he  defended  this  against 
the  book  of  Radbert;  and  it  is  also  said  that  John 
Scotus  Erigena,  a  famous  theologian,  took  a  hand  in 
this  controversy  and  opposed  the  view  of  Radbert. 
On  the  other  hand,  Radbert's  doctrine  was  espoused 
by  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  by  Haimo  of  Halberstadt, 
and  other  leading  Catholic  teachers.  In  the  eleventh 
century  the  doctrine  of  a  symbolic  or  spiritual 
presence  was  reasserted  by  Berengar.  He  was  a 
very  able  thinker.  He  denied  the  doctrine  of  Rad- 
bert, and  upheld  the  scriptural  and  symbolical  mean- 
ing of  the  ordinance.  He  was  opposed  by  Lanfranc, 
the  famous  abbot  of  Bee,  in  Normandy,  and  after- 
wards Archishop  of  Canterbury  under  William  the 
Conqueror.  Berengar  and  his  doctrine  were  also 
condemned  by  the  celebrated  Hildebrand,  who  was 
now  Pope  Gregory  VII.  This  decided  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  in  favor  of  transubstantiation,  as 
it  was  afterwards  affirmed  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Greek  Church  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence,  not  in  the  definite  form  brought  out  in  the 
mediaeval  debates  in  which  Radbert  and  Berengar 
figured,  and  as  afterwards  defined  in  the  Tridentiue 
formula,  but  rather  in  the  vague,  indefinite  and 
mystical  language  of  the  early  Fathers.  This 
Church  also  accepted  the  sacrificial  idea,  the  adora- 
tion of  the  host,  and  prayers  for  the  dead. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  as  was  the  case 
with  so  many  other  doctrines  and  practices,  various 
views  were  held  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
Reformers  differed  widely,  both  from  the  Catholic 
doctrine  and  among  themselves.    Luther  rejected  the 


510  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

mass  and  other  errors  connected  with  it;  but  in  re- 
gard to  the  meaning  of  the  Supper  his  view  differed 
only  slightly  from  that  of  Rome.  He  maintain- 
ed that  the  real  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  were 
still  present  with  the  elements,  though  these  were 
not  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ.  Zwingli  held 
that  the  bread  and  wine  were  only  emblems  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Calvin's  position  was 
rather  peculiar.  He  did  not  agree  exactly  either 
with  Zwingli  or  Luther,  holding  a  sort  of  compromise 
view  between  the  two.  He  taught  a  real  dynamical 
presence  of  Christ,  though  regarding  his  glorified 
body  as  being  in  heaven,  and  not  actually  present  in 
the  elements.  The  notion  is  that  Christ  is  in  some 
special  spiritual  way  present  at  the  Supper  and 
bestows  gi*ace  upon  the  believer  as  he  receives  the 
tokens  of  his  body  and  blood ;  while  to  an  unbeliever 
these  are  only  bread  and  wine.  The  Anabaptists 
coincided  rather  with  the  Zwinglian  idea  of  the 
symbolic  and  commemorative  teaching  of  the  ordi- 
nance. It  does  not  appear  that  their  views  on  this 
subject  were  the  occasion  of  any  special  conflicts, 
since  many  of  the  Reformers  themselves  sympathized 
with  the  Zwinglian  doctrine.  Hiibmaier's  teaching, 
according  to  Newman.*  sets  forth  that  the  Supper  is 
"a  public  sign  and  testimony  of  the  love  through 
which  Christians  oblige  themselves  before  the  church, 
just  as  they  together  break  the  bread  and  drink  the 
cup,  so  also  to  give  up  their  lives  and  their  blood  for 
each  other,  and  this  according  to  the  example  of 
Christ  whose  suffering  they  memorialize  in  the  break- 
ing of  the  bread.    Bread  and  wine  are  not  the  body 

*  History  of  Ayitipcedobaptism,  p.  178. 


lord's  supper  IX   HISTORY,  511 

and  blood  of  Christ,  but  mere  memorials  of  the 
suffering  and  death  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of 
our  sin, — the  greatest  sign  of  his  love  that  he  has 
left  us.'- 

Along  with  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of 
Christ  was  naturally  discussed  the  efficacy  of  the 
ordinance  of  the  Supper.  This  point  need  not  detain 
us  long,  as  the  general  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  was 
discussed  in  connection  with  baptism;  and  making 
the  necessary  changes,  the  doctrines  apply  to  the 
ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Thus  the  Catholics 
maintained  that  the  ordinance  is  spiritually  effica- 
cious, and  to  partake  of  the  actual  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  brings,  ex  opcre  operato,  by  virtue  of  the  act 
itself,  certain  spiritual  blessings  to  the  participant; 
not  regeneration,  as  this  has  been  provided  for  in 
baptism,  but  remission  of  sin  and  spiritual  support, 
sanctification  and  blessing.  Naturally  the  Lutheran 
and  High  Church  doctrine  inclines  in  the  same  way, 
while  the  Reformed  opinion  is  that,  as  in  the  case  of 
baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  ''sign  and  seal"  of  the 
blessing  set  forth  in  the  symbols,  and  in  some  sense 
likewise  ''conveys  and  fulfills"  these  blessings  to  the 
worthy  participant.  The  Zwingiian  doctrine  was 
much  more  simple,  though  Zwingli  also  inclined  to  the 
"sign  and  seal"  idea.  The  simplest  view  concerning 
the  efficacy  of  the  rite  was  that  held  by  some  Zwing- 
lians  and  the  Anabaptists,  that  it  was  merely  a 
symbol  or  token  of  our  Lord's  death,  and  was  spiri- 
tually efficacious  only  as  an  act  of  obedience  and 
worship,  and  not  in  any  miraculous  way. 

We  now  take  up  the  topic  of  the  participants  in 
the  ordinance.  These  were  only  the  baptized,  and  this 


612  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

from  the  verj  earliest  history.     In  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  was  evidently  the  case.     According  to 
Bingham*  this  was  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the 
earlier  centuries.     The  catechumens  and  penitents 
were  dismissed,  and  only  baptized  believers,  in  full 
fellowship  remained  to  the  eucharist.    Though  here- 
tics and  schismatics  were  not  permitted  to  partake, 
infants  were  admitted  as  soon  as  baptized  and  ever 
afterwards,  until  debarred  by  sins  committed  as  they 
grew  up.     Infant  communion  continued  to  be  the 
practice  of  the  Roman  Church  for  several  centuries, 
but  was  finally  discarded.    The  Council  of  Trent  for- 
bade infant  communion,  but  with  a  clause  refusing 
to  condemn  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church.    The 
Greek  Church  continues  the  practice.    It  is  a  logical 
consequence  of  infant  baptism,  which  this  venerable 
body  alone  of  all  P?edobaptists  is  consistent  enough 
to  maintain.    In  the  case  of  communicants  who  could 
not  be  present  on  account  of  sickness,  or  other  pro- 
vidential hindrances,  a  deacon  was  despatched  with 
the  elements,  that  these  believers  might  receive  them 
at  their  homes.f     Of  these,  the  sick,  and  martyrs 
under  sentence  of  death,  were  especially  considered. 
From  this  arose  what  the    Romanists    styled    the 
"sacrament   of  extreme   unction,"    the  practice   of 
anointing  the  sick  with  oil,  derived  from  the  well 
known  direction  in  the  Epistle  of  James.    The  com- 
municants were  expected  to  prepare  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  eucharist.    Baptism  and  its  accompany- 
ing obligations  of  repentance,  faith  and  the  presum- 
able regenerate  life,  were  understood  in  every  case. 

*  Antiquities,  b.  xv.,  ch.  iv.,  §  1  i. 
t  Cf.  Bingham,  1.  c,  M  8,  9. 


lord's  supper  in  history.  513 

All  crimes,  and  many  other  sins,  debarred  even  the 
baptized  from  the  eucharist.  Before  communicating 
they  had  to  do  penance,  and  this  is  the  origin  of  con- 
fession before  mass — it  was  originally  the  prepara- 
tion for  taking  part  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

These  principles  of  both  a  baptismal  and  religious 
preparation   for  the   ordinance   continued   through 
the  ^Middle  Ages  and  thus  it  appears  that  baptism 
and  good  standing  in  the  church  have  always  been 
generally  recognized  as  prerequisite  to  communion. 
Dr.  Wall  the  famous  historian  of  infant  baptism, 
somewhere  asserts  that  among  all  the  heresies  that 
have  come  up,  none  were  ever  found  to  teach  that  the 
unbaptized  might    partake  of  the    Lord's    Supper. 
This  distinction   was  reserved  for  the    open    com- 
munion Baptists,  who  have  lived  and  flourished  since 
Dr.  Wall  wrote.    There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
any  of  the  sects  before  the  Reformation,  which  more 
or  less  resemble  the  Baptists  of  to-day,  ever  practised 
anything  of  the  kind.  The  Anabaptists  of  the  Re- 
formation time  believed    that    the    Lord's    Supper 
should  be  restricted  to     the     baptized.     Professor 
Vedder*  mentions  a  confession  of  faith  which  was 
put  forth  by  some  of  the  Swiss  Anabaptists  at  a  little 
village  near  Schaffhausen  in  the  year  1512,  and  says: 
''It  teaches  the  baptism  of  believers  only,  and  break- 
ing the  bread  by  those  alone  who  have  been  baptized ; 
and  inculcates  a  pure  church  discipline."  In  regard 
to  the  later  practice  of  the  Baptists    Vedder    also 
says:-;-    ''One  of  the  most  important   revolutions  in 
the  practice  of  the  English  Baptist  churches  was  the 

*  iShort  History  of  the  Baptists,  pp.  84,  85. 
t  Short  History,  p.  ]4;i 


514:  ORDINANCES  OB^  THE  CHURCHES. 

change  from  strict  to  open  communion."  The  change 
was  made  about  the  time  of  John  Bunyan,  and  was" 
largely  due  to  his  influence ;  but  even  then  it  was  by 
no  means  generally  accepted.  Early  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  the  powerful  influence  of  Kobert 
Hall,  aided  by  the  sentiment  of  union  among  Dis- 
senters, led  large  numbers  of  English  Baptists  to 
practise  open  communion. 

We  proceed  now  to  study  the  history  of  the 
observance  of  the  Supper.  From  the  earliest  times, 
dating  back  even  to  the  little  band  at  Troas,  who 
came  together  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  to  break 
bread,  we  find  that  the  celebration  of  the  ordinance 
was  intimately  connected  with  public  worship.  The 
eucharist  was  regarded  as  the  highest  act  of  worship. 
The  first  suggestions  that  we  have  of  a  liturgy  are 
in  connection  with  it  and  baptism.  It  was  part  of 
the  early  social  worship,  of  the  Sunday  worship, 
and  of  the  special  worship  of  feast  days.  In  one  way 
or  another  this  has  been  a  notable  part  of  its  history 
in  all  sects  and  through  all  controversies.  Bingham, 
in  the  fifteenth  book  of  his  Antiquities,  gives  ac- 
counts of  the  worship  associated  with  the  eucharist 
in  the  early  churches.  He  quotes  from  a  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Laodicea,  as  follows:  "After  the 
homily  of  the  Bishop,  first  the  prayer  of  the  catechu- 
mens is  to  be  made,  and  after  the  catechumens  are 
gone  forth,  then  the  prayer  for  the  penitents;  and 
when  they  have  received  their  benediction  by  im- 
position of  hands  and  are  withdrawn,  then  the  three 
prayers  of  the  faithful  are  to  be  made,  the  first  of 
which  is  to  be  performed  in  silence,  the  second  and 
third  by  the  bidding  [that  is,  of  the  deacon] ;  after 


lord's  SUrPER  IN   HISTORY.  515 

this  the  kiss  of  peace  is  to  be  given,  the  presbyters 
saluting  the  bishop."  In  Justin  Martyr's  time  the 
deacons  distributed  both  elements  to  all,  beginning 
with  the  bishops,  but  later  the  bishop,  or  presbyter, 
began  the  distribution.  The  people  received  in  these 
early  times,  both  the  bread  and  the  cup  and  each  dis- 
tinctly and  not  mixed,  as  became  the  custom  in  the 
Greek  Church ;  the  people  all  standing  or  kneeling, 
never  sitting.  There  was  no  elevation  of  the  host  for 
adoration  for  many  ages,  before  about  the  twelfth 
or  thirteenth  century.  The  service  closed  l)y  a  form 
of  words  from  the  deacon,  to  which  the  worshipers 
responded,  "Amen."  Sometimes  Psalms  were  sung 
by  the  choir  while  the  service  was  going  on.  In  later 
tims  there  was  sometimes  afterwards  a  short  service 
of  dismissal.  From  these  early  ceremonies  the  elaboi 
rate  ritual  of  the  Roman  Church  was  subsequently 
developed.  In  the  Episcopal  and  Lutheran  Churches 
many  of  these  forms  of  service  were  retained,  and  are 
still  retained.  The  Reformed  churches,  hating  the 
abuses  that  •  had  grown  up,  reverted  to  a  much 
simpler  method  of  worship,  in  which  they  had  the 
entire  sympathy  of  the  Anabaptists  and  other  evan- 
gelical sects. 

In  regard  to  the  frequency  of  the  celebration  of 
the  Supper,  something  must  be  said.  According  to 
the  accounts  in  the  Book  of  Acts  it  seems  to  have 
been  celebrated  sometimes  daily,  sometimes  weekly. 
So  in  the  early  church,  for  the  first  three  centuries, 
according  to  Bingham,  the  people  were  expected 
to  come  every  liOrd's  day,  sometimes  every  day, 
though  many  neglected  to  come.  Later  the  council 
required    the    people    (the    priests    communicating 


516  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

every  dav)  to  come  at  least  three  times  a  year, — at 
Christmas,  Pentecost  and  Easter,  Of  course  masses 
were  celebrated  more  frequently.  But  afterwards  by 
the  Lateran  Council  only  one  day  in  the  year  was 
required,  that  was  Easter,  when  the  people  must 
come  for  confession.  Thus  the  Catholic  practice, 
from  being  a  daily  observance  on  the  part  of  the 
people,  has  come  to  be  that  only  an  annual  participa- 
tion is  requii-ed;  whereas,  the  priests  are  expected  to 
communicate  every  day,  and  oftener  as  they  may  be 
required  to  celebrate  masses.  In  other  churches  the 
celebration  of  the  Supper  has  varied  greatly  as  to 
time. 

There  are  various  details  of  more  or  less  interest 
connected  with  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
In  early  times  there  was  an  agape,  or  love  feast,  con- 
nected with  it.  In  the  Corinthian  church  it  seems 
that  the  celebration  of  the  ordinance  followed  this 
feast.  There  is  mention  of  love-feasts  also  inJude  12. 
This  custom  was  retained  for  many  centuries,  but 
abuses  grew  up  around  it,  and  it  was  abandoned  pro- 
bably as  early  as  the  fourth  century.  Sometimes  the 
elements  were  kept  over  in  what  was  called  a, 
sacrarium,  either  for  subsequent  use,  or  to  send  to 
the  sick.  This  custom  became  subject  to  abuses, 
and  was  somewhat  debated.  One  of  the  most  singu- 
lar customs  was  that  which  grew  up  in  the  Roman 
Church  of  withholding  the  wine  from  the  laity.  This 
practice  is  peculiar  to  Rome.  Various  reasons  have 
been  assigned  for  it.  One  was  that  the  bread  only 
could  be  conveniently  carried  home  from  the  public 
celebration  for  the  family  communion.  Another  was 
that  in  giving  children  wine  they  were  sometimes  in- 


lord's  supper  IX   HISTORY.  517 

toxicated.  Another  was  that  the  wine  being  re- 
garded as  the  actual  blood  of  the  Lord  after  con- 
secration, fear  was  felt  that  some  of  it  might  be 
carelessly  spilled.  But  the  real  reason  probably  was 
to  increase  the  dignity  and  power  of  the  priesthood 
by  making  this  distinction.  In  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury the  custom  was  established  and  justified  by  the 
idea  that  the  consecrated  bread,  being  the  actual 
body,  must  contain  the  blood  also.  This  doctrine 
was  much  resisted  by  the  sects,  and  was  one  of  the 
controversies  that  helped  on  the  Reformation.  It 
occasioned  great  disputes  within  the  Roman 
Church  and  led  to  a  war  in  Bohemia  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  because  the  people  protested  against 
being  so  deprived.  This  also  was  a  part  of  the  con- 
tention of  the  famous  Bohemian  reformer  John  Huss, 
who  suffered  at  the  stake  in  the  fifteenth  century. 


618  ORDINAXCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  lord's  supper  IN   MODERN  OPINION  AND  PRACTICE. 

I.  The  Meaning.    Four  theories. 

1.  The  Catholic  Doctrine;  transiibstantiation. 

( 1 )  Statement. 

(2)  Objections. 

2.  The  Lutheran  Doctrine;  consubstantiation. 
(2)   Statement. 

(2)   Defence  and  difficulties. 

3.  The  Calvinian  Doctrine;  dynamic  presence. 

Lacks  clearness. 

4.  Zwinglian    Doctrine;     memorial    and    sym- 

bolic. 
Generally  accepted  among  evangelicals. 

II.  The  Participants. 

1.  Psedobaptist  views. 

(1)  Majority  restrict. 

(2)  Some  exceptions. 

2.  Baptist  views. 

(1)  Open  communionists. 

(2)  Close  communionists. 

III.  The  Observance. 

1.  Preparation. 

2.  Worship, 

3.  Frequency. 

4.  Details. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  lord's  supper  IN   MODERN  OPINION  AND  PRACTICE. 

Having  passed  under  review  the  principal  his- 
torical developments  in  regard  to  the  ordinance  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  we  now  proceed  to  consider  the 
state  of  modern  opinion  and  practice  in  regard  to  the 
rite.  We  shall  pursue  the  same  course  as  in  regard 
to  the  history,  remarking  upon  the  meaning,  par- 
ticipants and  observance  of  the  ordinance,  as  these 
are  now  exemplified  among  the  principal  denomina- 
tions of  Christians. 

In  regard  to  the  meaning,  history  has  shown  how 
the  four  leading  theories  grew  up,  but  it  is  better  now 
to  state  them  in  the  language  of  the  various  creeds 
and  some  of  the  best  theologians  of  the  different 
denominations. 

(1)  The  Roman  doctrine.  This  is  commonly 
called  trausubstantiation,  from  the  idea  that  the 
substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  is  changed  oyer  into 
the  actual  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  It  was  fully 
developed  and  stated  in  the  Decrees  and  Canons  of 
the  Council  of  Trent.*  In  the  thirteenth  session  of 
the  Council,  held  October  11th,  1551,  the  "Decree 
concerning  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist" was  adopted,  and  the  canons  condemnatory  of 
the  opposing  views  were  added.  This  decree  is  too 
long  to  quote  entire,  but  the  sense  is  brought  out 

*  Cf.  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  Vol.  ii.,  p.  12(i  f. 
519 


520  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES, 

perhaps  as  well  as  in  any  other  place  in  the  state- 
ment of  chapter  iv.,  which  is  as  follows:  ''And  be- 
cause that  Christ  our  Redeemer  declared  that  wjiich 
he  offered  under  the  species  [appearance]  of  bread 
to  be  truly  his  own  body,  therefore,  has  it  ever  been 
the  firm  belief  in  the  Church  of  God,  and  this  holy 
Synod  doth  now  declare  it  anew,  that  by  the  con- 
secration of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine  a  conversion 
is  made  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the 
body  of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  the  whole  substance 
of  the  wine  into  the  substance  of  his  blood :  Avliich 
conversion  is  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  suitably 
and  properly  called  transubstantiation."  The 
canons  following  proceed  to  condemn  those  who 
deny  any  of  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  various 
chapters  of  the  decree.  The  first  canon  is  as  follows : 
"If  any  one  denieth  that  in  the  sacrament  of  the  most 
holy  Eucharist  are  contained  truly,  really  and  sub- 
stantially the  body  and  blood,  together  with  the  soul 
and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  conse- 
quently the  whole  Christ,  but  saith  that  he  is  therein 
as  a  sign,  or  a  figure,  or  in  virtue ;  let  him  be  anathe- 
ma." This  doctrine  is  expounded  by  Moehler  in  the 
thirty-fourth  section  of  his  ^SymhoUsm,  where  he 
speaks  of  it  as  being  ''a  matter  of  so  much  difficulty 
to  Protestants  to  form  a  clear  conception  of  this 
dogma."  We  might  answer  that  it  is  not  a  difficulty 
in  understandinc)  what  the  Tridentine  theologians 
have  so  clearly  and  forcibly  expressed,  but  the  diffi- 
culty lies  in  Relieving  their  forbidding  and  unscrip- 
tural  doctrine  with  its  consequences. 

The  objections  to  the  doctrine  scarcely  need  to 
be  more  than  briefly  stated,     (a)  It  is  unscriptural, 


THE  ST  PPER  IN   MODERN  PRACTICE.  521 

founded  on  an  enforced  literal  interpretation  of  what 
was  clearly  figurative  language  in  our  Lord's  in- 
stitution of  the  rite,  (b)  It  is  absurd  and  preposter- 
ous that  a  priest  should  change  a  bit  of  wafer  into 
the  actual  body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity,  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  without  a  stupendous  miracle; 
and  we  have  no  right  to  assume  by  any  promise  of 
Scri|)tui'e  that  such  a  miracle  as  this  would  be 
wrought  for  such  a  purpose,  (c)  It  is  repulsive  that 
a  priest,  oftentimes  unfit,  should  be  the  agent 
through  whom  so  great  a  miracle  should  be  wrought, 
or  should  be  the  ministrant  of  such  holy  things  as 
the  "body  and  blood,  soul  and  divinity'"  of  the  God- 
man  himself,  (d)  It  virtually  defeats  the  true  de- 
sign of  the  Supper  as  a  memorial  ordinance,  making 
it  a  sacrifice,  and  elevating  a  piece  of  wafer  as  an 
object  of  worship,  and  even  as  a  propitiation  for  the 
dead.  Of  course  the  Romanist  does  his  best  to  meet 
these  objections  bj'  denying  them  ever}-  one  and 
asserting  the  contrary. 

(2)  Tlie  Lutheran  doctrine.  This  commonly  goes 
under  the  name  of  consubstantiation.  The  following 
is  the  language  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Article 
X. :  "Of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  they  teach  that  the 
bod}'  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present  and  are 
there  communicated  to  those  that  eat  in  the  Lord's 
Supper."  The  German  edition  adds  after  the  words, 
"are  truly  present."  the  phrase,  "under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine."  In  Luther's  small  catechism  to  the 
question,  "What  is  the  sacrament  of  the  altar?"  the 
answer  is.  "It  is  the  true  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  under  the  bread  and  wine,  given  unto  us  as 
Christians  to  eat  and  to  drink  as  it  was  instituted 


522  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

by  Christ  himself."  In  Article  VII.  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  the  doctrine  is  more  fully  explained  in 
contrast  with  the  teachings  of  the  Catholic  and  Re- 
formed churches.  Under  the  affirmative  statement 
of  the  doctrine  it  is  said :  ^'We  believe,  teach  and  con- 
fess that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  truly  and  substantially  present,  and  that 
they  are  truly  distributed  and  taken  together  with 
the  bread  and  wine."*  Putting  together  the  differ- 
ent prepositions  used  in  these  statements  a  condens- 
ed popular  statement  of  the  Lutheran  belief  is  that 
the  actual  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  received 
"in,  with,  and  under  "  the  bread  and  wine.  The 
Lutheran  doctrine  is  fully  discussed  by  Dr.  Krauth.y 
In  stating  the  theory  of  the  ''true  presence,"  he  says : 
"We  oppose  the  true  presence:  (1)  To  the  Zwinglian 
theory,  that  the  presence  of  those  objects  is  simply 
ideal, — a  presence  to  our  memory  or  contemplation. 
(2)  To  the  theory  set  forth  by  Bucer  in  the  Tetrapoli- 
tan  Confession,  further  elaborated  by  Calvin,  and 
now  generally  known  as  the  Calvinistic,  to- wit :  that 
the  body  and  blood  are  present  in  eflflcacy  through 
the  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  believing 
elect."  Dr.  Krauth's  arguments  for  this  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  are:  (a)  It  is  demanded  by  the 
types  of  the  Old  Testament  concerning  Christ  as 
the  true  Paschal  Lamb.  As  the  lamb  was  partaken 
of  so  must  he  be,  and  as  he  suffered  in  his  humanity 
as  a  lamb,  so  must  he  in  his  humanity,  that  is,  body, 
be  partaken  of.  (b)  The  types  of  the  sacrifices  in 
general  require  this,  because  these  were  offered  to 

*  Cf.  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christenclom,'V6\.  iii.,  pp.  13,  90. 135. 
t  Conservative  Reformation  and  its  Theology,  p.  535  ff. 


THE  SUPPER  IN  :\IOr)ERX  PRACTICE.        523 

God  and  also  partaken  of  by  the  offerer;  so  here  in 
the  eucharistic  elements  Christ  is  offered  to  God 
and  must  be  partaken  of  by  the  offerer,  but  he  can- 
not be  partaken  of  unless  he  is  present,  (c)  The 
words  of  institution,  'This  is  my  body.''  ''This  is 
my  blood,"  must  be  taken  literally  and  not  figura- 
tively. This  last  he  elaborates  by  the  following  line 
of  thought :  The  Eucharist  is  a  supper,  therefore 
the  language  must  be  literal.  The  Lord  did  not  of- 
fer to  the  disciples  the  symbols  of  food,  but  some- 
thing real.  It  is  a  testament  or  will.  Now  a  will 
must  contain  something  real  and  not  simply  a 
symbol.  And  it  is  a  covenant,  and  therefore,  must 
convey  real  things,  and  not  simply  symbols  of  things. 
The  fallacy  in  this  mode  of  argumentation  is  ap- 
parent. To  say  that  the  fact  of  its  being  a  supper 
requires  that  the  language  be  literal  simply  assumes 
the  point  at  issue;  and  the  other  two  statements  re- 
garding the  testament  and  the  covenant  amount  to 
the  same  thing;  and  the  answer  is  that  it  is  a  spiri- 
tual testament  betokened  by  symbols.  Our  Lord 
did  not  bequeath  to  his  disciples  the  actual  bread 
and  wine  which  they  then  and  there  consumed ;  nor 
did  he  covenant  to  proxide  for  their  physical  neces- 
sities through  life  in  these  elements. 

As  to  the  mode  of  the  Lord's  presence  in  the 
eucharist  there  seems  to  be  some  difference  of 
opinion.  Luther  taught,  and  high  Lutherans  ac- 
cept, the  omnipresence,  or  nhiquity,  of  Christ's 
body  by  virtue  of  the  communication  of  his  divine 
and  human  attributes;  but  others  try  to  evade  this 
logical  consequence  of  their  doctrine.  They  say  that 
this  is  a  mystery  comparable  to  that  of  the  Trinity, 


524  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

that  is,  God  is  both  one  and  three;  so  Christ's  body 
may  be  in  heaven  and  on  earth  at  the  same  time, 
but  in  different  senses.  The  decisive  objection  to 
this  doctrine  is  that  the  arguments  urged  in  sup- 
port of  it  are  unsatisfactory,  not  to  say  incompre- 
hensible. Moreover,  it  is  unscriptural,  as  the 
Catholic  doctrine  is,  and  it  involves  the  subject  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  in  unnecessary  mysteries  with  im- 
possible explanations. 

(3)  The  Calvinistic  doctrine.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Keformed  churches,  as  distinguished  from  the 
Lutheran  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  was 
divided  between  the  views  held  by  Calvin  and  those 
held  by  Zwingli,  and  consequently  in  the  Presby- 
terian churches,  generally,  there  remains  something 
of  wavering  between  the  views  held  by  these  two 
reformers.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  distinguish 
between  the  Calvinian  and  Zwinglian  conceptions 
of  the  Supper.  A  full  discussion  of  the  Reformed 
opinions  will  be  found  in  Hodge's  Systematic  Theol- 
ogy (Vol.  iii.,  p.  Oil  ff.).  A  good  statement  of 
Calvin's  view  is  found  on  p.  G2<S,  and  is  as  follows: 
^'While  Calvin  denied  the  real  presence  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist,  in  the  sense 
in  which  that  presence  was  asserted  by  Romanists 
and  Lutherans;  yet  he  affirmed  that  they  were 
dynamically  present.  The  sun  is  in  the  heaven,  but 
his  light  and  heat  are  present  on  the  earth;  so  the 
body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven,  but  from  that  glorified 
body  there  radiates  an  influence  other  than  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  (although  through  his  agency) 
of  which  believers,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  the 
recipients.     In  this  way  they  receive  the  bod}'  and 


THE  Si;i'PER  IX    MODERN  PRACTICE,  525 

blood  of  Christ,  or  their  substance  or  life-giving 
power."  He  held,  therefore,  that  thei-e  was  some- 
thing not  only  supernatural,  but  truly  miraculous 
in  this  divine  presence.  Thus  it  api)ears  that  Calvin 
in  his  rather  dubious  and  vague  doctrine  maintained 
somehow  a  ''real  presence,"  but  as  it  were  from  a 
distance.  This  o]»inion  mediates  between  the 
Lutheran  and  Zwinglian  views.  It  is  probably  held 
still  by  some  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians.  Its 
lack  of  definiteness  as  well  as  soundness  does  not 
recommend  it  to  general  acceptance. 

(4)  The  Zwinglian  doctrine.  This  is  the  simplest, 
and  to  the  thinking  of  evangelical  Christians  gen- 
erally, the  most  sound  and  scriptural  of  all  the  views 
presented.  According  to  its  teaching  the  bread  and 
wine  are  only  symbols  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  which  were  offered,  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  our 
sins.  In  participation  they  remind  the  true  be- 
liever of  the  actual  offering  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  mankind.  They  impress  upon  him 
the  lesson  of  that  death,  and  are  blessed  to  him  as 
he  participates,  just  as  any  other  act  of  worship 
and  obedience  is  blessed.  There  is  no  miracle,  no 
i-eal  i)resence  of  the  actual  body  and  blood  of  Christ; 
but  it  is  wholly  a  symbolical  and  memorial  ob- 
servance, wherein,  in  outward  tokens  devised  by  the 
Lord  himself,  the  atoning  power,  the  gracious  love, 
the  unspeakable  blessing  of  his  sacrifice  on  behalf 
of  sinning  humanity  are  visibly,  tenderly  and  im- 
pressively proclaimed.  This  view  may  be  found 
set  forth  in  the  Helvetic  Confessions,  first  and  sec- 
ond, and  also  in  the  Heidelberg  catechism.*  In  the 
*Cf.  Schaft's  Creedsof  Ckriatendom.  Vol.  iii.,  pp.  225,  291.  332. 


526  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

Heidelberg  catechism,  in  answer  to  question  78,  "Do 
the  bread  and  wine  become  the  real  body  and  blood 
of  Christ?"  the  doctrine  is  given  in  these  words: 
"No.  But  as  the  water  in  baptism  is  not  changed 
into  the  blood  of  Christ,  nor  becomes  the  washing 
away  of  sins  itself,  being  only  the  divine  token  or 
assurance  thereto ;  so  also  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
sacred  bread  does  not  become  the  body  of  Christ; 
though  agreeably  to  the  nature  and  usage  of  sacra- 
ments it  is  called  the  body  of  Christ." 

With  some  differences  as  to  details  the  majority 
of  evangelical  Christians  subscribe  to  this  doctrine, 
as  being  the  one  evidently  intended  to  be  set  forth 
in  the  holy  Scriptures.  In  the  English  Church 
opinions  vary  between  the  Lutheran,  the  Calvinian 
and  the  Zwinglian  doctrines.  An  account  of  these 
differences  within  the  Anglican  body  is  found  in 
Stanley's  Christian  Institutions.*  The  wavering  of 
the  English  Protestants  is  admirably  described. 
Under  Edward  VI.  the  ZwingUan  view  was  upper- 
most, and  this  was  shared  by  such  men  as  Cranmer 
and  Ridley.  Elizabeth,  however,  inclined  toward 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  and  in  her  time 
and  under  her  influence  the  Lutheran  view  was  some- 
what in  the  predominance.  In  later  times,  the 
extreme  Ritualists  have  inclined  almost  to  the 
Catholic  views,  while  the  Low  Church  and  Broad 
Church  parties  held  fast  to  the  Zwinglian  doctrine. 
Individuals  within  the  pale  of  that  body  may  be- 
lieve much  as  they  please.  The  language  of  the 
Article  is  so  diplomatic  as  to  permit  of  either  the! 
High  Church  or  Low  Church  interpretation.  Among 

*  Christian  Institutions,  Harper's  edition,  p.  88  f. 


THE  SUPPER  IN  MODERN  PRACTICE.  527 

the  Pri^sbyteriaii!*,  as  has  been  before  stated,  there 
is  some  wavering  betwften  the  Calviniau  and 
Zwinglian  statements,  though  it  is  common  among 
them,  as  in  the  case  of  baptism,  to  assert  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  '^sign  and  seal"  of  the  blessings 
typified  in  the  symbols,  and  in  a  certain  sense  those 
blessings  are  actually  conveyed  to  the  worshiper, 
as  he  partakes,  in  such  a  way  as  they  would  not  be 
conveyed  under  other  circumstances.  The  Zwinglian 
view  is  held  generally  by  the  Methodists.*  In  its 
simjdest  form  it  was,  as  we  saw,  adopted  or  ac- 
quiesced in  by  the  Anabaptists,  and  is  to-day  held 
by  the  Baptists.  They  do  not  lay  any  stress  on  the 
'•sign  and  seal"  idea  of  the  ordinance,  but  only  upon 
the  symbolic  representation  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  elements  of  the  Supper  and  urge 
its  memorial  character  as  its  main  and  indispensable 
feature:     ''This  do  in  remembrance  of  me." 

In  regard  to  the  participants  of  the  ordinance  of 
the  Supper,  we  have  seen  that  in  early  times,  the 
Middle  Ages,  at  the  Keformation,  and  until  the 
seventeenth  century  among  a  few  English  Baptists, 
the  overwhelming  consensus  of  opinion  among  Chris- 
tians of  every  name  was  that  participation  in  this 
most  holy  rite  should  be  restricted  to  such  believers 
as  had  been  baptized  and  were  in  presumably  good 
standing  with  their  churches.  What  is  the  state  of 
that  question  to-day? 

Among  Pa'dobaptists  the  majority  seem  still  to 
favor  this  restriction.  But  this  fact  is  apt  to  be 
lost  sight  of  because  they  commonly  regard  any  so- 

*As  shown  in  Dr.  Summers'  iSystematic  Theology,  Vol.  II., 
p.  406  f. 


528  ORDINANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

called  ''mode"  of  baptism  as  satisfactory,  and  look 
upon  almost  any  respectable  body  of  professing 
Christians  as  a  clinrcli  of  Christ.  Consequently 
they  do  not  regard  intercommunion  with  each  other 
as  any  infraction  of  the  principle  of  restriction. 
Their  invitation  to  partake  of  the  Supper  proceeds 
upon  the  supposition  that  only  those  who  are  con- 
sidered baptized  and  in  proper  standing  as  mem- 
bers of  some  Christian  church  will  accept  it.  On 
this  point  Dr.  T.  O.  Summers,  speaking  for  Metho- 
dists {Syst.  TliGol.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  409)  says:  ''Most 
certainly  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  for  communion; 
as  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  church  ordinance  designed 
for  the  members  of  the  church,  and  none  are  mem- 
bers who  are  not  baptized.  But  there  maj^  be  ex- 
ceptions." No  doubt  Paedobaptists  generally  would 
accept  this  language  without  any  modification,  ex- 
cept in  the  second  statement,  as  their  own.  But 
that  second  statement,  as  to  exceptional  cases,  might 
be  disputed.  Dr.  Summers  proceeds  to  explain  his 
own  meaning  by  specifying  such  accepted  believers 
as  have  not  yet  submitted  to  baptism,  but  in  their 
hearts  truly  love  the  Lord.  But  even  this  is  dis- 
tinctly exceptional. 

Among  Baptists  there  is  a  minority  who  favor 
and  practise  what  is  called  "open  communion,"  that 
is,  the  unrestricted  participation  in  the  ordinance 
by  any  professing  Christian  whether  baptized  and 
in  church  fellowship  or  not.  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  Baptist  who  thus  reasons  occupies  very  different 
ground  from  the  P?edobaptist  with  whom  he  partici- 
pates. For  the  Baptist  cannot  regard  the  Paedo- 
baptist  as  baptized,  unless  he  has  been  immersed; 


THE  SUPPER  IN   MODERN   PRACTICE.  529 

nor  as  being  in  a  properly  constituted  church,  since 
these  must  be  composed  of  baptized  believers.  Thus 
in  partaking  of  the  Supper  together  both  parties  are 
departing  from  their  principles.  They  are  acting 
from  a  commendable  sentiment,  perhaps,  but  not 
with  logical  consistency  in  either  case.  Each  re- 
pudiates the  ground  on  which  the  other  acts. 

On  the  other  hand  those  Baptists  who  practise 
what  is  popularly  but  inaccurately  known  as  "close 
communion,"  are  simply  acting  in  accordance  with 
wellnigh  universal  Christian  opinion,  and  refusing 
to  compromise  this  principle  for  sentiment.  The 
principle  is  that  three  things  are  requisite  to  a 
scriptural  and  proper  participation  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  namely,  belief,  baptism,  and  good  standing 
as  a  church  member.  All  will  agree  on  the  first. 
Most  Christians  agree  on  the  second  and  third.  So 
do  the  Baptists.  But  in  their  opinion  no  one  is 
baptized  without  immersion,  nor  is  a  proper  church 
member  without  connection  with  a  church  of  the 
baptized.  Furthermore,  the  Supper  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  a  test  of  Christian  love  and  fellow- 
ship, but  a  memorial  of  the  Lord.  It  was  not  in- 
tended to  show  how  much  we  love  each  other,  but 
how  much  we  love  him.  Moreover,  if  the  principles 
laid  down  in  another  part  of  this  treatise,  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  church  to  the  ordinances,  be 
correct,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  safeguard  the 
ordinance  by  every  proper  restriction,  even  if  this 
should  seem  to  work  a  hardship  at  times.  If  it  be 
urged  that  sectarian  divisions  among  Christians 
were  not  contemplated  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
therefore   they    should   be    disregarded    in    the    in- 


630  ORDIXANCES  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

terests  of  Christian  sentiment,  it  may  be  asked,  Who 
are  responsible  for  maintaining  these  divisions? 
Those  who  practise  what  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to 
the  act  and  recipients  of  baptism,  or  those  who  de- 
part from  scriptural  teaching  on  these  points? 
Which  party  ought  to  give  way?  A  Baptist  cannot 
have  but  one  answer  to  that  question.  This  is  the 
essential  point  in  the  whole  Baptist  contention  for 
restricted  communion.  Being  a  church  ordinance 
it  requires  in  the  participant  regular  church  mem- 
bership. Regular  church  membership  is  either  ac- 
tually of  the  individual  local  church,  or  reasonably 
certified  as  being  in  some  other  local  church  or- 
ganized according  to  the  gospel  order.  Beyond  these 
limits  an  invitation  to  participate  in  the  Supper  of 
the  Lord  should  not  go. 

This  position,  therefore,  restricts  the  observance 
from  immersed  Psedobaptists,  who  though  pre- 
sumably believers,  having  been  irregularly  immersed, 
are  not  in  proper  fellowship  and  relation  with  a 
true  New  Testament  church.  It  also  restricts  it 
from  former  Baptists,  presumably  converted,  and 
certainly  baptized,  who  are  not  now  in  regular  fel- 
lowship with  properly  constituted  churches  of  our 
Lord.  It  also  restricts  it  from  the  Disciples,  and 
other  bodies  of  immersed  believers  who  hold  views, 
not  slightly  different  on  matters  of  detail,  but  funda- 
mentally different  as  to  the  nature  and  design  of 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  who,  therefore,  cannot 
be  considered  to  walk  clearly  and  consistently  after 
the  gospel  order. 

Some  matters  connected  with  the  observance  of 
the    ordinance    remain    to    be    briefly    discussed. 


THE  SUPPER  IX   MODERN  PRACTICE.  531 

Preparation  for  participating  in  the  Supper  is  re- 
quired or  customary  among  some  of  the  denomina- 
tions. As  historically  developed  among  the  Catho- 
lics this  must  be  by  penance  and  confession,  and 
various  other  ways.  The  Protestant  denominations, 
many  of  them,  have  special  seasons  of  preparation 
before  the  Lord's  Supper.  Among  the  Methodists 
and  Presbyterians  this  is  not  uncommon.  Some 
Baptist  churches  also  have  ''covenant  meetings,"  or 
other  special  services  preparatory  to  the  observance. 

In  regard  to  the  worship  connected  with  the  ser- 
vice, there  is  of  course  a  very  Avide  difference  among 
professing  Christians.  The  Roman  Catholics  and 
High  Church  people  generally,  have  a  very  elaborate 
worship;  and  in  the  Episcopal  and  Lutheran 
churches,  especially  at  the  season  of  Easter,  there  is 
often  a  good  deal  of  ritual  connected  with  it.  Among 
other  denominations,  the  services  are  usually  very 
simple,  and  are  commonly  held  in  connection  with 
the  regular  morning  worship ;  some  Baptist  churches 
have  a  special  time  appointed  for  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  in  connection  with  it  a  simple 
service  of  prayer  and  praise  and  reading  of  Scrip- 
ture. There  is  much  to  commend  this  kind  of  ob- 
servance; for  often  at  the  close  of  the  morning  ser- 
vice, the  performance  of  this  solemn  rite  is  hurried 
through  without  sufficient  solemnity  or  impressive- 
ness. 

As  would  be  expected,  there  is  great  variety  in 
regard  to  the  frequency  of  the  observance.  The  Dis- 
ciples observe  the  Supper  every  Lord's  day  in  connec- 
tion with  the  morning  service.  The  Romanists,  as 
we  have  seen,  going  to  the  other  extreme,  require  it 


532  ORDINANCES  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 

of  the  people  only  once  a  year,  at  Easter,  though  they 
encourage  them  to  corae  oftener.  The  priests  are  ex- 
pected to  communicate  every  day ;  and  besides  there 
are  private  masses.  Between  the  weekly  and  annual 
observance,  there  is  almost  every  variety.  Some 
denominations  celebrate  twice  a  year,  a  large  number 
every  quarter,  and  perhaps  a  greater  number  still, 
once  a  month.  Baptist  churches  usually  vary  be- 
tween the  quarterly  and  monthly  observance. 

Some  details  remain  to  be  noticed.  The  use  of 
unleavened  bread  is  insisted  upon  by  some  churches, 
while  others  do  not  consider  that  necessarj-,  not  re- 
garding the  use  of  the  unleavened  bread  in  the  Pass- 
over feast  as  a  binding  precedent.  Some  also  use 
what  is  called  ^'unfermented"  wine,  and  some  temper- 
ance extremists  are  even  disposed  to  insist  upon  this 
as  necessary;  others,  however,  do  not  consider  it  a 
matter  of  essential  importance,  while,  as  making  use 
of  the  juice  of  the  grape,  it  may  be  allowable.  In 
recent  years  the  custom  of  having  what  is  known  as 
the  "individual  cup"  has  arisen,  but  this  seems  an 
unscriptural  and  useless  innovation.  The  common 
cup  seemed  to  be  a  part  of  the  observance  originally, 
and  to  be  involved  somewhat  in  the  symbolism  of  the 
ordinance.  In  regard  to  posture,  there  is  some 
variety.  In  some  of  the  denominations  the  communi- 
cants go  forward  and  kneel  at  the  so-called  altar, 
while  the  elements  are  distributed  by  the  appointed 
authority;  some  sit  around  the  table  in  companies; 
others  occupy  their  seats  and  the  elements  are  dis- 
tributed by  the  deacons.  In  some  churches  the  com- 
municants are  requested  to  come  forward  or  sit  to- 
gether, in  others  they  are  served  by  the  deacons  as 


THE  SUPPER  IN  MODERN  PRACTICE.  533 

they  sit  in  their  places  without  the  dismissal  of  the 
congregation.  It  seems  desirable  that  the  com- 
municants should  sit  together,  and  there  is  no  good 
reason  why  the  congregation  sliould  not  be  dis- 
missed, leaving  for  this  sacred  observance  only  those 
who  are  properly  qualified  to  take  part  in  it.  It  is 
usual  to  have  a  collection  for  the  poor  in  connection 
with  the  service,  sometimes  to  have  the  covenant 
read,  to  have  prayers  before  the  distribution  of  each 
element,  and  at  the  close  to  sing  a  hymn  and  depart. 
Of  course  there  is  differenc  as  to  the  management 
of  all  these  details.  "But  let  all  things  be  done  de- 
cently and  in  order." 


534  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

PART  THIRD. 
OITTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  I. 


THE  CHURCH  AS  A  WORKING  FORCE. 

T.  Its  Cliaracter  as  a  Unit  of  Power. 

1.  It  reaches  individuals. 

(1)  Seeking  the  one  among  many. 

(2)  Receiving  the  one  ont  of  many. 

2.  It  is  itself  a  unit. 

3.  It  co-operates  with  other  units. 

(1)  Respects  individualism. 

(2)  Develops  a  social  unit. 

(3)  Admits  co-operation. 

II.  Its  Divine  and  Human  Relations. 

1.  Relation  to  God. 

(1)  Charter  relation. 

(2)  Personal  relation. 

(3)  Instrumental  i-elation. 

2.  Relation  to  man. 

(1)  He  needs  what  the  church  has. 

(2)  The  church  has  what  he  needs. 

III.  Equipment  for  Service. 

1.  Location  and  environment. 

2.  Character. 

(1)  Membership. 

(2)  Corporate  life. 

3.  Organization. 

(1)  Departments. 

(2)  Officers. 

(3)  Committees. 

(4)  Appliances. 


PART  THIRD. 


WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 
CHAPTER  I. 

THE    CrirRCH    AS    A    AYORKING    FORCE    IX     SOCIETY    AND 
THE   KINGDO^kl. 

Before  niidertakin.2;  to  set  forth  the  different 
phases  and  methods  of  church  work,  and  discussing 
the  various  details  which  belong  to  that  part  of  its 
life,  we  should  pay  some  attention  to  the  sphere  and 
the  demand  for  the  labors  of  the  church.  At  the  out- 
set we  may  say  broadly  that  the  church  has  a  work 
to  do  in  this  world  for  God  and  man,  or  under  God 
for  man.  The  worship  and  the  ordinances  of  the 
church  emphasize  activity  toward  God,  while  its 
beneficent  enterprises  set  forth  activity  toward  man ; 
hence,  the  sphere  of  the  church's  work  is  human  soci- 
ety. Some  would  call  this  one  hemisphere  of  the 
church's  work,  and  the  phrase  is  not  unsuitable. 
Others  speak  of  it  as  the  neglected  hemisphere  of  the 
church's  work.  This,  no  doubt,  is  the  exaggerated 
statement  of  overzealous  reformers  who  are  prone  to 
look  only  at  one  side  of  the  subject  at  a  time,  and 
who  seem  to  underrate  both  the  actual  achievements 
of  the  past  and  the  earnest  efforts  of  the  present. 

535 


536  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

Some  churches  doubtless  underrate  activity  in  com- 
parison with  creed,  but  the  very  vantage  ground 
from  which  the  reforming  critic  thunders  his 
anatliemas  against  listless  orthodoxy  has  been  gain- 
ed and  is  now  held  by  the  earnest  workers  of  the 
church.  It  has  taken  all  the  Christian  advance  of 
the  past  to  awaken  in  our  times  the  great  interest 
which  is  now  manifested  in  questions  of  social  re- 
form. No  thoughtful  student  of  history  ought  to 
question  that  the  church  has  been  a  verj'  important 
factor  in  the  development  of  civilization,  and  if  this 
had  been  the  neglected  hemisphere  in  all  the  past 
there  would  not,  and  could  not,  be  now  among 
Christian  people  as  much  intense  and  earnest  in- 
terest as  there  is  in  social  improvement.  Still  no 
one  can  claim  that  the  church  is  entirely  fulfilling 
her  mission  in  these  regards.  Not  enough  is  doing 
for  the  help  of  humanity ;  but  it  is  a  gross  exaggera- 
tion to  speak  as  though  Christian  people  and  Chris- 
tian churches  were  oblivious  and  inactive  in  the 
matter  of  human  improvement.  At  any  rate,  whether 
sphere  or  hemisphere,  whether  unduly  neglected  or 
not,  human  society  in  its  need  and  trouble  is  the 
field  where  the  churches  of  the  Lord  must  labor. 
The  kingdom  of  God,  introduced  and  established 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  has  been  for  these  nine- 
teen centuries  tlie  greatest  power  on  earth  for  human 
good.  The  principles  of  Christianity,  infused  and 
potent  in  the  progress  of  mankind,  have  wrought 
wondrous  help  in  the  midst  of  human  sin  and  suf- 
fering. More  wonderful  seem  the  effects  achieved 
when  we  sadly  reflect  that  at  every  stage  of  progress 
the  work  of  the  kingdom  has  itself  been  hindered 


THE  CHURCH  A  WORKING  FORCE.  537 

and  marred  by  human  fault  and  perversion.  Sin  has 
mingled  with  its  own  antidote  and  neutralized  the 
healing  virtue.  Selfishness  and  greed  have  invaded 
the  ranks  of  the  saints  and  hindered  the  triumphs 
of  the  cross.  These  are  sad  admissions,  but  history 
and  candor  require  them  of  us.  Yet,  make  all  al- 
lowance, deduct  all  errors,  condone  no  crimes,  pal- 
liate no  faults,  and  it  still  abides  true  that  the 
leaven  of  the  kingdom  of  God  has  been  and  still  is 
at  work  in  this  world  for  the  uplifting  and  help  of 
sinning  and  suffering  humanity.  The  terms  ''church" 
and  "•kingdom"  are  not  synonymous.  For  evidently 
the  local  church  is  not  as  broad  as  the  kingdom ; 
and  the  universal  church  while  coterminous  with 
the  kingdom,  is  not  identical  with  it;  the  kingdom 
is  the  reign  of  God  in  the  lives  of  his  people  and 
through  them  in  the  world,  the  general  church  is  the 
''ideal  assembly''  of  all  true  believers.  While  the 
l)ersons  and  principles  involved  are  the  same,  the 
conceptions  under  which  these  are  embracd  are  dif- 
ferent. Yet  the  relations  of  church  and  kingdom 
are  necessarily  close.  The  effective  instrument  for 
carrying  on  the  kingdom  in  this  world  is  the 
church.  Most  Christians  agree  to  this,  but  they 
differ  as  to  what  is  the  church.  Having  be- 
forehand, in  the  discussion  of  church  polity,  de- 
duced what  is  the  New  Testament  conception  of  the 
church,  it  only  remains  for  us  here  to  show  how  the 
local  church  is  the  divinely  appointed  means  for 
extending  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

^Ve  are  to  consider  the  church  in  its  character  as 
a  unit  of  power.  The  unity  of  the  church  universal 
in  the  Protestant  sense  is  not  here  under  discus- 


538  AVORK  AND  WORSfllP  OF  CHURCH. 

sion,  because  the  church  universal  is  not  an  organi- 
zation, but  an  ideal  assembly.  The  unit  of  power 
in  the  earthly  manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
is,  therefore,  not  an  aggregation  of  churches,  or 
individuals,  nor  is  it  any  centralized  authority  dele- 
gated by  God  to  man,  nor  is  it  the  individual  Chris^ 
tian  turned  loose  hj  himself  in  the  world.  It  is  the 
local  church,  a  body  of  true  believers  in  Christ,  bap- 
tized upon  profession  of  their  faith,  organized  upon 
New  Testament  principles,  and  located  in  some  com- 
munity of  mankind.  Here  is  centralized-  and 
rendered  effective  the  divinely  appointed  power  for 
human  good. 

One  of  the  first  things  to  strike  us  in  the  work  of 
the  church  as  a  unit  of  force  is  the  fact  that  it 
reaches  the  individual.  The  mass  of  men  is  of  course 
made  up  of  individuals,  and  the  church's  work  on 
the  mass  is,  therefore,  through  the  individual.  Mr. 
Benjamin  Kidd,  in  his  striking  book,  kiOcial  Evolu- 
tion (p.  264),  declares  that  the  social  progress  of 
mankind  is  due  to  the  subordination  of  the  interests 
of  the  individual  to  the  larger  interests  of  society, 
and  proceeds  to  say :  ''The  manner  in  which  ap- 
parently this  result  is  being  attained  in  human  so- 
ciety is  b}'  the  slow  evolution  in  the  race  of  that 
type  of  individual  character  through  which  this 
subordination  can  be  most  effectively  secured.  This 
type  appears  to  be  what  would  be  described  in  popu- 
lar language  as  the  religious  character.  The  win- 
ning races  have  been  those  in  which,  other  things 
being  equal,  this  character  has  been  most  fully  de- 
veloped." If  this  theory  be  sound,  then  the  work  of 
the  church  in  reaching  and   improving  individual 


THE  CHIUCII  A  WORKING  FORCE.  539 

character,  is  the  strongest  sort  of  contrilnition  to 
the  onward  progress  of  the  race  in  all  social  good. 

In  its  ministries  both  stated  and  special,  the 
church  seeks  the  one  among  many ;  and  in  the  per- 
sonal efforts  of  its  members  the  church  makes  for 
human  souls  one  by  one.  Under  its  Master's  lead 
it  recognizes  the  worth  of  the  individual  soul  and 
goes  out  to  that.  It  leaves  the  ninety-and-nine  and 
seeks  the  sheep  that  is  lost.  Not  the  masses  as 
such,  but  the  individual  souls  who  make  the  masses, 
are  the  objects  of  the  church's  high  and  holy  mission. 
The  church  receives  the  one  out  of  many.  If  true  to 
its  divine  charter,  and  submissive  to  the  divine  teach- 
ing, it  requires  of  those  who  would  enter  its  sacred 
fold  individual  repentance,  individual  faith,  in- 
dividual baptism.  All  these  are  evidences  and 
tokens  of  individual  regeneration.  The  church  does 
not  do  wholesale  work,  but  receives  its  members  one 
by  one  as  they  are  being  saA'ed. 

But  while  the  church  thus  individualizes  in  its 
efforts  to  reach  men,  it  is  itself  a  definite  unit  com- 
posed of  individuals  who  are,  according  to  best 
knowledge  and  belief,  regenerated  souls.  The  church 
bcomes  a  combination.  It  is  an  organized,  unified 
society.  It  thus  welds  into  an  organ,  or  instrument 
for  service,  the  separate  personalities  of  its  mem- 
bers with  all  their  Christian  energies  and  opportu- 
nities. As  such  a  unit  it  is  responsible  to  Christ  as 
its  head,  and  to  him  alone.  We  therefore  repudiate 
all  hierarchical  establishments;  for  Christ  has  ap- 
pointed no  vicegerent  on  earth.  We  reject  union 
with  the  state;  for  Christ  alone  is  lawgiver  and 
leader  over  his  churches.     We   oppose  control  by 


540  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

secularism;  for  Christ  alone  is  the  final  authority 
and  giver  of  life  above  the  church.  Must  then  each 
separate  church  remain  a  disjointed  and  separate 
unit?    No;  it  must  co-operate  with  other  like  units. 

Being  one  thing  it  can  unite  with  other  like  or- 
ganizations for  various  purposes  which  affect  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  churches,  and  the  welfare 
of  mankind  in  general.  This  is  all  that  is  needed  if 
wisely  manag^ed,  and  is  all  that  the  New  Testament 
seems  to  require.  To  seek  to  weld  the  churches 
themselves  into  higher  units  of  power,  into  combi- 
nations where  the  local  church  is  overwhelmed  and 
merged  into  some  grand  centralized  body,  has  no 
scriptural  warrant;  but  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
no  law  against  union,  against  co-operation. 

This  view  of  the  local  church,  which  was  developed 
and  justified  in  our  former  studies,  is  surely  a  very 
inspiring  one.  It  respects  human  individualism.  It 
looks  upon  each  human  soul  as  having  a  value  and 
a  power  in  itself.  It  authorizes  and  develops  a  so- 
cial unit  under  the  highest  sanction,  namely,  that  of 
God  himself.  It  admits  of  co-operation  to  any  ex- 
tent not  contrary  to  Scripture  teachings  or  princi- 
ples, and  as  far  as  need  and  convenience  may  re- 
quire, for  the  very  best  ends.  Such  is  the  character 
of  the  church  as  a  unit  of  force  for  accomplishing 
the  divine  purposes  of  good  to  man.  And  this  brings 
us  to  consider  the  relation  of  the  church  to  God 
and  man. 

The  church's  relation  to  God  may  be  expressed  in 
several  ways.  There  is  what  might  be  called  its 
charter  relation,  that  is  to  say,  the  local  church  of 
the  New  Testament  is  distinctlv  a  divine  institution. 


THE  CHfRCH  A  WORKING  FORCE.  541 

We  hold  firmly  that  Christ,  the  divine  Son  and 
Saviour,  is  the  true  Founder,  the  Lord  and  Head  of 
the  churches.  They  have  no  right  to  exist  except 
by  his  authority ;  and  his  word  is  their  constitution. 
The  local  church  is  not  the  product  of  human 
thought,  the  slow  evolution  of  religious  feeling  and 
intellect.  It  is  the  result  of  divine  command  and 
appointment.  The  church  is  not  a  mere  club  brought 
into  being  by  virtue  of  the  human  social  instinct. 
If  this  is  true,  the  church  has  no  more  divine  war- 
rant than  any  other  club  or  corporation;  and  there 
are  many  Avho  wish  us  to  believe  just  this  thing. 
We  decline  to  follow  their  teaching,  but  rather  ac- 
cept as  true  and  final  the  doctrine  that  God  through 
Christ  has  established  by  direct  appointment  these 
associations  of  his  own  people. 

Then  there  is  what  might  be  called  the  personal 
relation  of  the  churches  to  God.  The  heavenly 
Father  exercises  a  real  and  distinct  oversight  of  the 
church.  It  is  near  to  him.  It  is  his  Zion,  the  apple 
of  his  eye,  graven  on  the  palms  of  his  hands. 
On  the  other  hand,  worship  and  ordinances,  while 
of  divine  apopintment,  are  also  expressive  of  the 
church's  sense  of  personal  nearness  to  God.  It  is  in 
the  solemn  act  of  worship  and  conscious  obedience 
to  his  own  injunctions,  that  she  sings  to  her  Lord: 
"Lift  uj)  your  heads.  O  ye  gates.  And  be  ye  lift  up 
ye  everlasting  doors;  and  the  King  of  glory  shall 
come  in." 

Again,  there  is  what  might  be  called  the  instru- 
mental relation  of  the  church  to  God.  The  church 
is  in  the  divine  hand  a  means  for  reaching  man  with 
the  overtures  of  the  gospel  and  with  the  means  of 


542  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

grace,  that  is,  it  is  God's  wav  of  calling  and  saving 
men,  and  then  of  training  them  for  the  duties  of 
earth  and  the  glories  of  heaven. 

We  turn  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  church 
in  its  relation  to  man.  It  will  be  the  work  of  the 
following  chapters  to  describe  the  various  methods 
of  the  church's  beneficent  labor  among  men.  Here 
it  is  necessary  only  to  recall  a  few  general  truths. 
Man  needs  just  the  help  that  the  church  was  in- 
tended to  bring.  Spiritual  health,  the  soul's  cleans- 
ing and  uplifting,  is  the  gr-eatest  need  of  mankind. 
There  are  doubtless  enough  in  the  world  to  deny  this. 
Some  who  call  themselves  advanced  thinkers,  and 
even  some  Christians  under  their  leading,  will  tell 
us  that  other  things  are  needed  more  than  soul- 
s&ving.  It  is  easy  to  make  light  of  the  spiritual,  but 
after  all,  sometimes  even  in  the  midst  of  harsh 
materialism  and  boastful  rationalism,  men  deeply 
feel  their  need  of  a  help  which  these  cannot  give. 
The  unintentional  appeal  of  man's  sad  state  is  to 
the  church  a  loud  and  imperative  call.  And  where 
he  fails  to  perceive  and  to  feel  his  spiritual  needs, 
it  is  the  church's  duty  constantly  to  endeavor  to 
awaken  within  him  such  a  sense.  For  the  church 
has  just  what  man  most  needs.  This  is  but  another 
way  of  stating  what  has  already  been  said.  In 
scriptural  language  we  say  that  the  church  is  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth;  by  virtue  of  her 
charge  she  is  the  depositary  of  the  divine  word,  the 
dispenser  of  the  blessings  of  God  to  man.  Her  re- 
sources are  not  within  herself  except  as  put  there  by 
the  divine  hand.  '^'Fi'eely  ye  have  received,  freely 
give,"  was  the  Lord's  word  to  his  disciples  as  he 


THE  CHURCH  A  WORKIXU  FORCE.  543 

sent  them  forth.  The  church's  heavy  responsibility 
is  here  apparent,  and  likewise  her  duty  to  hold  fast 
to  the  intention  of  her  Lord,  and  not  lower  herself 
to  become  a  mere  social  club,  or  guild  for  humanita- 
rian reform. 

With  such  principles  and  purposes  the  church  has 
a  glorious  mission  in  this  world,  and  we  must  now 
give  attention  to  its  equipment  for  the  service  which 
it  has  to  perform.  Considering  each  local  church 
as  an  instrument  in  God's  hands  for  doing  good  to 
man,  we  must  take  thought  of  some  conditions  which 
help  to  decide  the  character  and  extent  of  the  ser- 
vice to  be  rendered. 

The  matter  of  location  and  environment  is  ob- 
viously one  of  considerable  importance.  It  is  very 
unwise  to  impose  exactly  the  same  kind  of  work  upon 
all  churches  without  regard  to  their  location.  Plain 
as  this  is  on  a  moment's  reflection,  it  yet  needs 
emphasis.  A  country  church,  a  village  church,  a 
town  church,  a  city  church,  all  necessarily  differ 
from  each  other  in  their  methods  of  work.  So  also 
location  in  a  particular  section  of  the  country,  in  a 
particular  quarter  of  a  town,  or  ward  of  a  city,  will 
often  make  different  ways  of  work  desirable.  The 
density  and  the  character  of  the  population  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  church  are  forces  of  vast 
moment  in  influencing  both  methods  and  results. 
The  leaders  in  churches,  both  pastors  and  laymen, 
must  pay  attention  to  these  things,  or  they  will  not 
make  their  churches  reach  the  highest  efficiency. 
Men  must  not  be  impatient  if  they  find  work  slower 
in  a  sparsely  settled  country  than  it  is  in  a  crowded 
city.     Men  must  not  be  disappointed  if  they  find 


544  WORK  AND   WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

progress  more  difficult  in  some  quarters  of  the  city, 
and  amid  certain  kinds  of  population,  than  it  is  in 
more  favored  localities.  Methods  of  reaching  the 
people  which  would  be  successful  in  some  quarters 
would  not  only  be  unsuccessful  in  others,  but  might 
even  be  ridiculous. 

Another  element  in  determining  the  nature  and 
quality  of  the  church's  work  is  the  church's  own 
character;  for  as  men  differ  from  each  other  in 
character  so  do  churches.  Each  one  has  char- 
acteristics peculiarly  its  own  which  enter  into  and 
shape  its  activity.  For  instance,  there  is  the  mem- 
bership;— the  number,  wealth,  social  position,  in- 
telligence, piety  and  permanence  of  the  members 
must  all  be  reckoned  with.  Then  there  is  what  might 
be  called  the  corporate  life  of  the  church.  Here  we 
must  take  account  of  its  history,  its  creed,  customs 
and  associations.  A  wise  pastor  will  faithfully  study 
all  these  matters  with  a  view  to  successful  leader- 
ship of  his  people. 

Still  another  element  in  the  church's  equipment 
for  service  is  that  of  its  interior  organization;  the 
different  departments  of  the  church's  life  and  work. 
Here  belong  its  meetings  for  worship,  both  the  stated 
Sunday  services  and  the  mid-week  prayer-meeting, 
and  in  addition  such  special  services  as  may  from 
time  to  time  be  appointed.  The  business  meetings 
also  ought  to  be  so  managed  as  to  induce  the  at- 
tendance of  a  larger  number  of  the  members,  and  to 
secure  their  more  intelligent  interest  in  all  that  con- 
cerns the  church.  This  is  one  of  the  serious  problems 
of  our  present-day  church  life.  Various  devices 
might  be  tried,  as  that  of  combining  some  worship 


THE  CHURCH  A  WORKING  FORCE.  545 

with  the  business,  oi'  of  making  the  business  meet- 
ing's come  less  often,  «iuai*toi']y  instead  of  monthly. 
Some  churches  have  tried  putting  the  business  meet- 
ing on  Sunday;  but  this  would  scarcely  commend 
itself  as  a  desirable  arrangement,  unless  under  pres- 
sure of  circumstances. 

Other  meetings  for  social  intercourse,  should  also 
be  held.  The  social  department  of  the  church's  life 
can  by  no  means  be  safely  neglected.  Of  course,  there 
is  danger  here  of  allowing  these  meetings  to  be- 
come mere  festivities,  and  of  ministering  to  the  in- 
ordinate craving  for  amusement  which  characterizes 
our  age;  but  wisely  managed,  the  social  meetings  of 
the  church  are  a  great  help  to  its  spiritual  life.  It 
is  of  the  utmost  im])ortance  that  the  members  in  the 
ditfercnt  walks  of  life  should  not  only  become  ac- 
quainted with  each  other,  but  should  feel  a  real  per- 
sonal interest  in  each  other's  welfare. 

Other  departments  of  the  church's  life  are  the 
various  societies  •  which  labor  for  certain  definite 
ends,  commonly  for  the  raising  of  funds  for  the 
special  objects  for  which  they  are  organized.  And 
there  are  useful  societies  for  visiting  and  working, 
apart  from  the  merely  financial  objects.  Care  should 
be  taken  that  these  societies  be  i-ecognized  as  de- 
partments of  the  church's  work,  and  not  independent 
organizations  pursuing  their  own  policies.  In  ad- 
dition to  these  there  are  also  the  schools, — the  Sun- 
day-school in  the  home  church,  and  others.  Some 
churches  also  have  industrial  schools  and  day- 
schools,  and  some  even  night-schools,  for  teaching 
those  who  have  to  work  in  the  day.  These  may  be 
made  valuable  adjuncts  to  the  church's  life.     Then 


546  ^YORK   AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

there  are  the  missions  and  the  charities  which  oc- 
cupy the  attention  of  the  church  to  a  greater  or  lesy 
extent.  These  departments  of  the  church's  work, 
some  of  them  essential  to  its  organization,  are  of 
the  utmost  importance;  and  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
according  to  the  size  and  location  of  the  church 
various  others  may  be  added  as  the  necessities  and 
opportunities  of  any  given  field  may  require. 

In  regard  to  the  officers  of  the  church,  something 
must  be  said.  They  are  essential  to  the  complete 
organization  of  a  church.  The  pastor  and  deacons, 
who  are  the  scriptural  officers,  should  of  course  be 
wisely  chosen.  One  of  the  most  essential  things  to 
the  efficiency,  purity  and  strength  of  a  church  is  the 
character  of  its  officers.  Great  care  should  be  taken 
to  see  that  these  shall  be  tried  and  well  known  before 
they  are  inducted  into  office.  A  man  ought  not  to 
be  appointed  deacon  of  a  church  because  of  his 
wealth,  nor  because  of  his  poverty,  nor  because  of 
his  kinsfolk,  nor  for  any  other  reason  than  that  he 
will  make  a  capable  and  useful  officer.  Some 
churches  elect  their  deacons  for  a  term  of  years, 
others  for  life  or  good  behavior.  Each  plan  has  its 
advantages  and  its  disadvantages;  and  no  rule  can 
be  laid  down  for  all  churches.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant officers  in  the  church  is  that  of  clerk,  and 
one  of  the  most  difficult  to  fill  acceptably.  A  man 
who  has  capacity  and  liking  for  details,  who  will 
take  pride  in  keeping  his  records  neatly,  who  will 
keep  himself  informed  as  to  the  membership  and 
will  attend  the  business  meetings  promptly,  is  a 
very  desirable  helper  in  any  church.  Too  often  this 
office  is  turned  over  to  some  young  man  without 


THE  CHURCH  A  WORKING  FORCE.  547 

much  experience  of  denominational  or  church  life 
with  the  idea  of  complimenting  him  into  taking 
some  active  interest  in  the  church  work.  This  is  a 
mistake.  A  man  without  experience  is  not  likely  to 
know  how  to  keep  properly  the  records,  or  to  attend 
to  the  various  duties  of  a  church  clerk.  Frequent 
changes  in  this  office  are  undesirable,  and  when 
a  church  once  gets  hold  of  a  really  good  clerk  it 
ought  by  all  means  to  retain  his  services  as  long  as 
possible. 

In  addition  to  the  officers  of  the  church  there  are 
the  committees.  Some  of  these  are  standing  com- 
mittees appointed  for  a  year  and  charged  with 
various  parts  of  the  church  affairs,  and  some  are 
only  temporary,  appointed  for  certain  definite  pur- 
poses immediately  in  view.  Some  are  elective,  but 
most  commonly  they  are  appointed  by  the  pastor. 
It  requires  knowledge  of  men  and  tact  on  the  part  of 
the  pastor  to  make  proper  selection  of  the  commit- 
tees. Two  things  he  has  to  Avatch  carefully.  One  is 
to  get  suitable  persons  to  serve,  and  this  is  the  main 
thing.  Places  upon  important  committees  should 
not  be  compliments  and  favors.  A  pastor  will  soon 
learn  that  in  order  to  get  committee  work  done  he 
must  get  willing  workers  to  do  it.  The  other  point 
to  be  guarded  is  that  he  should  secure  sufficient 
variety  in  the  composition  of  his  committees.  To 
appoint  the  same  man  over  and  over  again  on  dif- 
erent  committees  is  not  best.  The  work  should  be 
distributed  among  the  members  as  far  as  possible; 
and  yet,  this  matter  will  often  be  in  conflict  with  the 
other. 

Along  with  the  organization  of  a  church  nuiy  be 


548  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

mentioned  the  various  appliances  by  which  it  carries 
on  its  labors.  The  church  should  have  suitable  build- 
ings, rooms,  furniture,  and  other  appointments  by 
which  most  suitably  its  work  may  be  conducted. 
Churches  with  many  departments  and  appliances 
have  acquired  the  name  of  ''institutional."  The 
phrase  is  not  happy.  It  does  not  accurately  describe 
any  church  to  speak  of  it  as  an  "institutional 
church;''  for  as  a  matter  of  fact  all  churches  are 
institutional, — they  have  institutions;  and  it  is 
simply  a  question  of  more  or  less,  and  what  kinds, 
of  institutions.  Benches  and  stoves,  Sunday-schools 
and  libraries,  hymn-books,  organs,  choirs — all  these 
may  be  called  institutions,  and  the  churches  which 
have  them  are,  therefore,  institutional  churches;  so 
the  phrase  is  too  vague  to  be  apt.  Another  objec- 
tion is  that  it  seems  to  imply  a  sort  of  conscious 
superiority  on  the  part  of  those  churches  which  take 
unto  themselves  this  high-sounding  name.  Now  the 
kind  and  number  of  departments  and  methods  and 
appliances  which  a  church  may  adopt  in  the  further- 
ance of  its  work  will  depend  very  largely,  as  we  have 
seen,  upon  its  character,  location  and  material;  so 
that  what  might  be  good  in  one  place  would  not  be 
desirable  in  another.  Moreover,  it  is  not  wise  for  a 
church  to  multiply  these  things.  Too  much  ma- 
chinery will  undoubtedly  keep  up  a  lively  rattle,  but 
it  may  not  be  a  very  effective  working  force  after  all. 
In  fact  the  multiplication  of  agencies  will  easily  in- 
terfere with  real  spiritual  power;  and  merely 
humanitarian  and  social  activitj'  is  sure  to  obscure 
too  much  the  proper  spiritual  work  of  the  churches. 
Upon  the  whole  it  is  not  safe  to  condemn  utterly  all 


THE  CHURCH  A  WORKING  FORCE.  549 

these  appliances  which  many  of  our  modern  city 
churches  are  adopting,  and  yet  they  need  not  be  re- 
garded as  essential  to  the  life  of  a  church,  or  even  to 
its  eflSciency.  The  extremes  of  this  movement  are 
likely  to  pass  away,  and  whatever  is  desirable  in  it 
will  remain.  One  thing  should  be  repeated  as  worthy 
of  special  emphasis,  namely,  that  the  same  kind  of 
"institutions"  are  not  equally  suitable  to  all 
churches;  though  all  may  learn  much  by  studying 
the  spirit  and  methods  of  each  other. 


550  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CHURCH  WORKING  FOR  ITSELF. 

I.  Increase. 

1.  Material. 

(1)  Children  of  its  members. 

(2)  Persons  outside  its  own  families. 

2.  Methods. 

(1)  Regular  services. 

(2)  Special  efforts. 

(3)  Personal  work  of  pastor  and  members. 

3.  Some  dangers. 

II.  Culture. 

1.  Elements. 

(1)  Piety. 

(2)  Intelligence. 

(3)  Liberality. 

(4)  Activity. 

2.  Means.     Correspond  with  the  foregoing. 

III.  Discipline.    Dealing  with  offences. 

1.  Kinds  of  offences. 

(1)  Personal  wrongs. 

(2)  Errors  of  doctrine. 

(3)  Contumacy. 

(4)  Immorality. 

2.  Treatment  of  offences. 

(1)  Sympathetic. 

(2)  Corrective. 

(3)  Penal. 

3.  Some  important  details. 

(1)  Duty  of  initiative. 

(2)  Mode  of  procedure. 


CHAPTER  ]T. 

THE  CHURCH   WORKING  FOR  ITSELF. 

One  of  the  most  important  works  of  the  church 
is  the  edifying  of  itself.  It  owes  duties,  to  mankind 
and  to  God  that  it  can  by  no  means  decline,  but 
these  do  not  require  that  it  should  be  anything  else 
than  keenly  alive  to  its  own  prosperity  and  growth. 
The  intei-ests  of  the  church  are  so  bound  up  in  its 
work  outside  of  itself  that  the  two  sets  of  activities 
are  often  inseparable  in  fact,  though  they  are 
separable  in  thought,  and  to  some  extent  in  nature. 
In  considering  the  edification  of  the  church,  there- 
fore, let  us  by  no  means  deem  this  to  be  the  only,  or 
even  the  most  important,  part  of  the  church's  work, 
but  only  that  which  logically  comes  first  when  we 
begin  to  discuss  the  various  activities  of  a  body  of 
Christians.  Any  instrument  must  be  prepared  for 
its  work.  The  teacher,  helper,  or  leader  of  others 
must  be  qualified  for  his  task.  So  must  the  church 
be  adapted  and  trained  for  its  own  proper  work  in 
the  world.  It  is  evident  that  no  small  part  of  the 
church's  task  is  the  promotion  of  its  own  efficiency 
as  a  unit  of  force  for  the  moral  and  spiritual  good 
of  mankind.  The  main  points  to  be  considered  in 
the  work  of  the  church  for  itself  are  the  increase, 
the  culture,  and  the  discipline  of  its  members. 

The  primary  duty  of  the  church  is  to  grow.  Under 
ordinary  circumstances  we  may  say  that  a  church 

551 


552  WORK   AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

has  no  right  not  to  grow.  The  loss  of  members  is 
constant,  by  death,  removal  and  exclusion.  Besides 
repairing  the  loss,  there  ought  to  be,  if  possible,  net 
increase  from  year  to  year  in  the  body  of  the 
church's  membership. 

Where  is  the  church  to  look  for  the  material  to 
work  into  its  membership?  This  depends  very  much 
upon  the  location  of  the  church,  the  density  of  the 
population  in  its  neighborhood,  and  various  other 
conditions.  The  ordinary  sources  of  a  church's  in- 
crease are  two,  and  the  church  is  unfortunate  which 
has  to  depend  upon  either  of  these  alone.  They  sup- 
plement each  other.  These  sources  are  the  children 
of  its  members,  and  the  outside  Avorld. 

The  bringing  into  the  church  of  the  children  out 
of  its  own  families  is  a  matter  of  vital  importance. 
Baptists  repudiate  utterly  the  idea  that  the  children 
of  church  members  by  virtue  of  such  i)arentage  are 
members  of  the  church,  and,  therefore,  should  be  bap- 
tized. They  also  believe  it  is  a  wholly  unscriptural 
notion  that  children  may  be  trained  into  regenera- 
tion ;  but  we  may  reject  these  two  errors  with  all 
our  might,  and  yet  emphasize  the  importance  of 
child-training  and  the  duty  of  earnestly  seeking  the 
children.  It  is  a  mournful  thing  to  see  the  children 
of  church  members  grow  up  outside  of  the  church, 
and  turn  away  from  it.  For  every  reason  it  is  im- 
perative that  wise  and  continuous  efforts  should  be 
made  to  Avin  the  children  to  the  church.  The  Sunday- 
school  is  an  important  means  to  this  end,  but  it 
should  not  be  the  only  one.  Parents  have  here  a  duty 
which  they  cannot  without  fault,  and  serious  fault, 
turn  over  to  anv  others.    The  older  members  of  the 


CIirRCH   WORKING  FOR  ITSELF.  553 

church  should  also  have  an  eye  to  other  i)eople's  chil- 
di-en  as  well  as  their  own.  Sometimes  the  friendly 
word  of  a  neighbor  may  have  more  effect  upon  a 
child  than  the  familiar  appeals  of  the  parent.  And 
as  for  the  pastor,  he  who  does  not  win  and  hold  the 
affections  of  the  children  in  his  congreoation  may 
be  said  without  exaggeration  to  be  cutting  off  the 
right  arm  of  his  power. 

By  removals  and  changes  it  sometimes  happens 
that  churches  have  to  depend  almost  entirely  on 
what  might  be  called  this  natural  increase.  The 
sparseness  of  the  population  around  it  and  the  lack 
of  outside  material  may  cause  this,  but  in  such  cases 
the  growth  is  very  sIoav,  in  fact  there  is  likely  to  be 
retrograde  rather  than  advance.  Many  of  the  older 
churches  are  simply  holding  on  to  life  in  this  way. 
The  church,  therefore,  must  look  to  persons  outside 
of  its  own  families  for  another  stream  of  supply. 
This  is  equally  important.  New  blood  should  be 
infused  into  the  church  life.  Actual  increase  in 
most  cases  depends  u])on  this  assimilation  of  new 
material.  Resides,  the  extending  of  the  power  and 
usefulness  of  the  church  requires  activity  ''toward 
them  that  are  without."  Most  important,  too,  is 
this  to  the  development  of  the  church's  interest  in 
men.  The  church  that  confines  its  efforts  simply  to 
the  children  of  its  own  members  will  naturally  con- 
tract and  lose  interest  in  humanity  at  large,  and 
tend  toward  formality  and  exclusiveness.  The 
church  which  fails  to  recruit  from  the  outside  world 
will  sooner  or  later  literally  dry  up. 

As  to  the  methods  to  be  pursued  in  reaching  out 
for  members  some  things  must  be  said.     A  church 


554  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

ought  to  use  all  good  methods  and  not  to  depend 
exclusively  on  any  one.  Variety  in  its  plans  is  de- 
sirable, and  yet  the  conservatism  which  holds  on  to 
old  methods  is  by  no  means  to  be  despised.  A  suit- 
able mingling  of  the  two  would  be  the  ideal.  The 
regular  institutions  of  the  church  could,  and  should, 
all  be  made  to  serve  this  end.  There  is  great  need 
of  conviction  and  work  in  this  direction.  t-!ad  it  is 
when  the  Sunday  worship,  prayer-meetings,  or  any 
other  services  of  the  church  should  be  regarded  as 
inadequate,  and  should  be  allowed  to  become  un- 
fruitful in  winning  souls.  If  pastors  and  people  be- 
lieved and  expected  that  the  regular  services  of 
the  church  might  in  God's  hands  be  used  for  the  im- 
mediate salvation  of  sinners,  it  would  be  an  immense 
gain  over  some  of  our  accepted  methods. 

This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  special  efforts 
should  never  be  made.  It  is  right  that  sometimes 
the  church  members  should  turn  aside  from  their 
daily  toils  and  have  a  season  of  continuous  worship. 
There  is  no  good  reason  why  services  should  not  be 
held  daily,  or  even  twice  a  day,  for  some  short  sea- 
son; nor  is  it  altogether  objectionable  that  evan- 
gelists should  come  and  stir  the  church,  as  the  pas- 
tor oftentimes  cannot,  into  quickened  activity,  and 
the  community  into  a  deeper  interest  in  religion; 
but  the  greatest  care  is  needed  in  the  conduct  of 
these  special  efforts,  for  they  are  easily  abused,  and 
many  evils  have  afflicted  our  churches  in  their  de- 
pending upon  evangelists  and  protracted  meetings 
for  the  increase  of  their  members.  That  church 
which  waits  twelve  months  or  two  years  until  an 
evangelist  comes  around  with  sensational  methods 


CHI'RCII   WORKING  FOR  ITSELF,  00 J) 

and  sharp  scolding  to  arouse  them  into  activity,  and 
make  them  "rescue  the  perishing,"  has  far  departed 
from  the  scriptural  standard  and  model.  Baptists 
often  condemn  the  ritualistic  observance  of  I^nt, 
and  do  they  not  too  often  wait  for  the  annual  pro- 
tracted meeting  to  feel  a  fresh  interest  in  religion, 
and  to  make  efforts  for  a  season  that  ought  to  have 
been  made  all  the  time  for  the  salvation  of  the 
world?  Special  efforts  may  occasionally  be  neces- 
sary and  desirable,  but  habjtual  dependence  upon 
them  is  deplorable. 

After  all,  the  best  of  all  methods  for  increasing 
the  membership  of  a  church  is  faithful,  personal 
work  bn  the  part  of  both  pastor  and  people.  Nothing 
can  excuse  the  neglect  of  personal  work  on  the  part 
of  the  pastor,  and  surely  there  is  no  work  of  his 
which  will  so  amply  reward  his  efforts  as  this.  What 
is  the  example  of  Jesus  himself?  It  is  true  he 
preached  in  the  crowded  synagogues  and  under  the 
blue  heavens  to  the  great  multitudes  which  thronged 
him,  but  he  did  not  neglect  the  inquiring  ruler  who 
came  by  night,  or  the  sinful  woman  whom  he  chanced 
to  meet  at  the  well.  But  while  the  pastor's  duty 
here  is  indispensable,  it  is  very  wrong  for  the  church 
members  to  feel  and  act  as  if  they  had  hired  the  pas- 
tor to  do  all  this  kind  of  work  for  them.  A  large 
share  of  it  should  be  his;  that  is.  it  is  right  that  he 
should  do  more  of  it  than  any  other  individual  mem- 
ber of  his  church,  partly  from  his  office,  and  partly 
because  he  is  released  from  worldly  care  in  order 
that  he  may  give  himself  more  particularly  to  spiri- 
tual work.  But  the  church  is  culpable  that  turns 
this  work  over  entirely  to  the  pastor,  yet  he  on  his 


556  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

part  must  teach,  by  precept  and  example,  the  church 
members  how  to  do  personal  work. 

There  are  some  dangers  to  be  considered  in  re- 
gard to  the  increase  of  members.  It  is  easy  to  make 
mistakes,  and  man\  of  our  churches  fall  into  grievous 
errors  on  this  score.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  in- 
creasing the  membership  without  increasing  the 
spirituality.  There  is  danger  of  putting  an  undue 
estimate  upon  mere  members.  Counting  is  one  of 
the  devil's  substitutes  for  converting.  The.  evan- 
gelist who  wishes  to  advertise  himself  does  it  by 
telling  how  many  converts  he  had  in  his  last  meet- 
ing. The  pastor  who  is  on  the  lookout  for  ''fresh 
fields  and  pastures  new"  will  have  himself  heralded 
in  the  denominational  jiress.  sometimes  by  his 
friends,  and  sometimes,  alas,  by  his  own  effrontery, 
boasting  of  the  number  added  to  the  church  in  his 
last  pastorate.  This  is  one  of  the  sad  curiosities  of 
modern  Christian  life.  What  zeal  there  is  for  the 
multiplication  table  as  a  test  of  spiritual  power !  It 
seems  sometimes  as  if  we  had  all  gone  mad  on  the 
subject  of  statistics.  It  is  a  mournful  thing  when 
size  comes  to  be  a  substitute  for  power.  Our 
churches  seem  to  have  forgotten  the  ancient  Scrip- 
ture which  tells  of  Gideon's  band. 

Another  danger  which  besets  us  in  regard  to  the 
increase  of  membership,  and  grows  out  of  the  undue 
estimate  of  numbers,  is  that  of  haste  and  lack  of 
care  in  receiving  members  into  the  churches.  It  is 
true  that  there  are  two  sides  to  this  matter,  and 
many  of  our  best  leaders  insist  that  in  the  Scripture 
baptism  follows  immediately  u]ion  profession,  and 
that  we  have  no  right  to  expect  a  new  convert  to  be 


CHURCH    WORKING  FOR   ITSELF.  557 

acquainted  with  the  luiirutiac  of  the  theological 
catechism.  This  contention  cannot  be  ignored,  and 
in  many  cases  it  is  right  that  confession  should  be 
immediately  followed  by  baptism;  but  on  the  other 
hand  the  haste  in  crowding  children  into  the  church, 
when  they  have  apparently  only  been  moved  by  chil- 
dish inii)ulses,  and  the  quickness  with  which  untried 
strangers  are  accepted  have  often  proved  a  snare 
and  a  trial.  No  rule  of  universal  application  could 
be  made  on  this  delicate  and  ditficult  matter;  yet 
if  there  wer^  more  care  in  receiving  members  it  is 
evident  that  there  would  be  less  need  for  exclusions, 
and  the  danger  of  crowding  the  church  with  un- 
spiritual  elements  would  be  lessened. 

Another  great  part  of  the  church's  duty  to  itself 
is  the  culture  of  its  members.  The  admission  of  a 
new  member  into  the  church  is  somewhat  like  the 
coming  of  a  new  member  into  a  family.  When  by 
conversion  it  is  as  if  by  birth,  and  when  by  letter  it 
is  as  if  by  adoption  or  marriage.  Now,  whenever  a 
new  member  arrives  in  a  home,  every  member  of  the 
houshold,  and  the  family  as  a  whole,  owes,  and 
usuall}'  gives  something  to  the  new-comer  in  the  way 
of  cave  and  training ;  but  in  churches  too  often  a  new 
member  gets  in  and  nobody  takes  any  particular 
pains  to  tell  him  anything  he  should  know.  And  so 
in  many  ways  the  culture  of  its  membership  is  a 
sadly  neglected  feature  of  the  church's  work. 

It  is  well  to  consider  briefly  some  elements  of  this 
culture.  In  what  should  church  members  be  trained? 
In  general,  the  eft'ort  of  the  church  should  be  the 
constant  development  of  its  members  into  a  larger 
and  richer  spiritual  life;  and  this  will  include  sev- 


558  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF   CHURCH. 

eral  particulars.  There  is  piety,  the  right  attitude 
of  the  soul,  the  cultivation  of  religious  principles 
and  sentiments,  the  development  of  faith  and  feeling 
toward  God.  This  is  essential,  indispensable.  It 
should  not  degenerate  into  mere  pietism  and  morbid- 
ness and  constant  effort  to  produce  frames  of  mind, 
but  there  should  be  on  the  part  of  church  members 
diligent  attention  to  the  cultivation  of  a  humble 
piety,  both  in  themselves  and  in  their  fellow  mem- 
bers. Again,  there  should  be  development  of  in- 
telligence in  the  religious  life.  A  Christian  may  be 
none  the  less  pious  for  knowing  a  few  things.  Sound 
intelligence  and  wide  information  on  religious  mat- 
ters are  greatly  to  be  desired  among  our  member- 
ship. Ignorance  and  narrow-mindedness  are  the  bane 
of  many  churches.  There  should  be  effort  on  the 
part  of  the  pastor  and  of  the  better  informed  mem- 
bers of  the  church  to  diffuse  religious  intelligence. 
There  are  many  ways  in  which  this  may  be  done,  in 
the  dissemination  of  tracts,  religious  literature, 
taking  of  papers,  inducing  the  people  to  read  some 
books:  and  certainly  the  pastor  ought  to  see  to  it 
that  the  people  under  his  ministry  should  not  only 
grow  in  piety,  but  also  in  knowledge.  The  pastor's 
work  is  not  simply  to  stir  the  emotions  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  he  should  give  them  something  to  awaken 
thought. 

Another  element  of  culture,  which  is  so  often  in- 
sisted upon  that  it  requires  no  extensive  treatment, 
is  that  of  liberality.  It  goes  without  saying  that 
churches  should  be  trained  in  the  grace  of  giving; 
in  fact,  it  seems  sometimes  that,  comparatively 
speaking,  undue  emphasis  is  placed  upon  this.  There 


CHURCH   WORKING  FOR   ITSELF.  559 

is  a  tendency  to  regard  liberality  as  the  chief  test 
of  spiritual  life.  Often  a  church  is  estimated  by 
the  amount  of  money  it  raises  for  religious  objects 
rather  than  by  the  piety  and  intelligence  of  its  mem- 
bers. These  all  go  together,  it  is  true,  but  there  is 
trace  now  and  then  of  a  disposition  to  consider 
liberality  as  the  main  thing  in  church  development. 
The  Apostle  Paul  did  not  think  so.  He  mentions  a 
good  many  other  things  and  then  says,  ''This  grace 
also.'" 

Another  element  of  culture  is  activity,  constant 
activity,  in  all  phases  of  the  church's  work.  One  is 
tempted  to  think  that  there  is  some  danger  here,  too. 
All  noise  is  not  activity.  A  great  many  people  and 
churches  are  more  fussy  than  fruitful.  See  that  bat- 
talion of  troops  as  they  parade;  they  file  and  counter- 
file  and  wheel  and  go  through  the  manual  of  arms; 
now  and  then,  while  the  drum  beats  and  the  fife 
blows,  they  ''mark  time."  Are  not  some  of  our 
churches  simply  on  dress-parade,  marking  time  in- 
stead of  marching?  Banners  and  trumpets,  drums 
and  noise — but  where  are  the  battles  and  victories? 
There  is  surely  plenty  to  do  without  taking  it  out  in 
make-believe.  One  of  the  crying  needs  of  the  times 
is  a  real,  genuine  Christian  activity.  True,  works 
do  not  save  the  worker,  it  is  rather  the  saved  who 
work;  but  the  work  of  the  saved  may  be  the  salva- 
tion of  the  unsaved. 

We  pass  on  to  notice  some  of  the  means  of  culture, 
and  these  naturally  correspond  to  the  elements 
which  have  just  been  pointed  out.  For  the  culture 
of  piety,  apart  from  the  constant  duty  of  personal 
devotion,  we  should  not  fail  to  emphasize  the  im- 


560  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

portance  and  value  of  public  worship.  We  must 
cease  to  regard  worship  as  entertainment.  We  must 
regard  it  as  an  indispensable  means  in  developing 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  worshiper.  Then  there  should 
be  instruction,  to  increase  the  intelligence  of  the 
people.  The  pastor  should  preach  instructively,  and 
the  Sunday-school  should  be  a  means  of  imparting 
knowledg'e.  By  way  of  developing  liberality  the 
churches  should  be  encouarged  to  adopt  plans  of 
systematic  giving.  There  is  great  force  and  power 
in  system,  yet  no  system  should  be  iron-clad.  There 
must  be  impulsive,  as  well  as  systematic  giving.  The 
matter  is  analogous  to  that  of  prayer.  We  ought  to 
have  stated  seasons  of  prayer,  but  it  would  be  a 
great  injury  to  the  spiritual  life  to  confine  the  soul's 
seeking  after  God  to  any  special  hour  in  the  day; 
and  so  in  giving  to  God's  cause,  to  reduce  it  all  to 
rule  and  to  leave  no  place  for  a  spontaneous  out- 
burst of  generosity  is  a  great  mistake. 

The  matter  of  personal  work  must  again  be  men- 
tioned. There  is  great  need  that  the  members  should 
exercise  themselves  in  actually  seeking  the  lost.  A 
readiness  to  seek  and  a  skillfulness  in  winning  souls 
unto  Christ  is  surely  one  of  the  most  important  ele- 
ments in  Christian  training. 

Let  us  now  give  consideration  to  the  vital  matter 
of  discipline.  This  properly  includes  what  has  been 
said  before  under  the  head  of  culture ;  for  the  kind 
of  training  just  described  is  a  part  of  discipline,  and 
is  sometimes  called  formative  discipline  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  corrective  discipline,  of  which  it 
is  now  the  purpose  to  treat.  Ordinarily  we  think  of 
this  last  when  we  speak  of  discipline,  and  sb  the 


CHURCH    WORKING   FOR   ITSELF.  561 

term,  in  accordance  with  popular  usage,  Avill  be  used 
in  tliis  narrow  sense.  It  is  a})])arent  that  it  is  a  very 
inipoitant  duty  of  the  church  to  exercise  a  wise, 
prompt  and  kind  correcti\^  discipline.  One  of  the 
great  lacks  of  our  modern  church  life  is  found  just 
here.  It  may  be  that  our  fathers  were  too  strict, 
and  that  they  excluded  persons  from  fellowship,  or 
laid  them  under  chui-ch  censure  for  comparatively 
trivial  faults,  but  there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt 
that  we  have  gone  too  far  to  the  other  extreme,  and 
our  churches  to-day  are  by  no  means  sufficiently  alive 
to  the  importance  of  a  careful  discipline. 

We  should  take  account  of  the  kinds  of  offences 
which  fall  under  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and 
among  the.se  we  mention  first  i)rivate  or  personal 
wrongs.  These  may,  as  a  last  resort,  be  made  mat- 
ters of  church  discipline  according  to  the  teachings 
of  our  Lord  in  Matt.  18 :15-17.  He  there  enjoins  that 
if  two  brethren  have  a  difference  they  should  en- 
deavor to  settle  it  between  themselves  alone;  failing 
that,  in  presence  of  others;  and  if  that  does  not 
succeed,  then  the  aggrieved  party  should  "tell  it  to 
the  church.''  It  would  greatly  promote  the  peace 
and  harmony  of  our  churches  if,  with  strict  ad- 
herence to  the  Lord's  command,  both  as  to  spirit  and 
letter,  this  process  were  pursued.  Yet  we  must  bear 
in  mind  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  unfortunate  for 
the  peace  of  the  church  if  every  little  personal  differ- 
ence between  members  should  be  made  a  matter  of 
church  intervention.  It  is  distinctly  only  as  a  last 
resort,  when  other  metJiods  have  been  tried  and  have 
failed,  that  cases  like  this  should  be  brought  to  the 
attention  of  the  church. 


562  WORK  AXD  WORSHIP  OF   CHURCH. 

Another  class  of  offences  is  that  of  errors  in 
doctrine.  This  is  a  matter  of  exceeding  delicacy. 
How  far  and  on  what  points  members  should  ex- 
ercise freedom  of  judgment  in  regard  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  and  the  accepted  standards  of  the 
church,  depends  greatly  upon  the  circumstances.  Of 
course  there  are  certain  great  fundamental  doctrines 
which  ought  to  be  upheld  by  all  means,  and  from 
which  departures  should  be  carefully  watched.  If 
a  member  ceases  to  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture,  in  the  need  of 
the  atonement,  or  if  he  should  go  entirely  astray  as 
to  the  denominational  view  of  the  ordinances,  it 
would  be  the  church's  duty  to  withdraw  fellowship ; 
but  there  are  certain  minor  details  of  doctrine  where, 
in  accordance  with  our  views  of  the  rights  of  the  in- 
dividual conscience,  the  church  might  well  allow 
some  latitude.  In  truth,  it  is  very  difficult  to  draw 
the  line  in  regard  to  such  vagaries,  and  each  church 
will  have  to  settle  such  questions  in  accordance  with 
its  traditions,  and  the  views  of  the  majority  of  its 
members.  Should  any  church,  however,  grow  so  lax 
as  to  tolerate  differences  in  fundamental  doctrines, 
it  will  be  the  duty  of  its  sister  churches  to  withdraw 
associational  fellowship,  and  not  make  the  denomi- 
nation as  a  whole  responsible  for  corruption  in 
doctrine.  Great  care  and  wisdom  are  needed  in  the 
exercise  of  discipline  on  account  of  doctrinal 
aberrations.  Men  who  honestly  differ  as  to  some 
doctrines  of  the  church,  but  are  pure  in  life  and 
honest  in  purpose,  ought  not  4^0  be  dealt  with  as  if 
they  wei'e  criminals.    They  should  be  reasoned  with 


CHURCH  WORKIXG  FOR  ITSELF.  563 

lovingly,  and  if  they  cannot  be  convinced,  then  they 
should  be  kindly,  though  firmly,  excluded. 

Another  class  of  cases,  less  deserving  of  tenderness, 
is  that  which  would  fall  under  the  head  of  contu- 
macy. Church  members  sometimes  grow  obstinate 
and  perverse  under  the  treatment  of  the  church  for 
doctrinal  or  moral  errors.  ^NTost  conniioiily  cases  of 
this  kind  go  in  company  with  other  errors.  Xo 
member  of  a  church  has  the  right  to  defy  its 
authority,  or  to  refuse  obedience  to  its  reasonable 
requirements.  Tf  a  member  is  cited  to  appear  be- 
fore a  church  to  show  cause  why  he  should  not  be 
excluded,  or  dealt  with  in  any  other  way,  and  should 
then  refuse  to  attend,  it  would  certainly  be  the 
church's  duty  to  deal  with  that  brother.  There  is 
no  good  reason  why  a  church  member  should  not  be 
willing  to  answer  all  the  demands  of  the  church 
upon  him,  and  to  give  satisfaction  where  there  is 
any  doubt  concerning  his  doctrinal  or  moral  sound- 
ness. Refusal  to  heed  the  just  requirements  of  the 
church  is  itself  a  grave  offense,  and  rej^eated,  ob- 
stinate refusal  should  of  course  be  managed  with  a 
firm  hand. 

But  the  most  serious  cases,  and  those  which  most 
frequently  occur,  are  breaches  of  the  moral  law. 
Here  again,  however,  there  arises  difficulty.  The 
grosser  crimes  and  sins,  of  course,  carry  their  own 
condemnation,  but  there  is  a  wide  range  all  the  way 
from  comparatively  venial  faults  up  to  the  gross 
sins,  and  just  where  an  inconsistency  shades  off  into 
a  positive  fault,  or  where  a  fault  descends  into  a 
gross  immorality,  are  hard  questions  to  decide. 
There  is  great  need  of  wisdom  and  patience  in  at- 


564  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

tending  to  such  cases.  But  because  it  is  sometimes 
difficult  to  decide  whether  a  departure  from  strict 
Christian  propriety  is  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  de- 
mand discipline,  is  no  reason  why  the  grosser  and 
more  pronounced  deflections  from  Christian  pro- 
priety should  not  be  summarily  and  vigorously  dealt 
with.  There  can  be  no  question  that  a  sound  and 
vigorous  discipline  upon  admitted  sins  and  im- 
proprieties is  a  great  need  in  our  day. 

The  treatment  of  these  various  kinds  of  offences 
will  naturally  vary  according  to  the  kind  and  the 
degree  of  the  offence  committed.  There  are  three 
grades  of  treatment  tov  offences  against  the  church : 
the  sympathetic,  corrective  and  penal. 

Sym])athetic  treatment  of  offenses  finds  its  scrip- 
tural  justification  most  plainly  and  directly  in  Gal. 
6:1,  2:  "Brethren,  even  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in 
any  trespass,  ye  which  are  spiritual  restore  such  a 
one  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  looking  to  thyself, 
lest  thou  also  be  tempted.  Bear  ye  one  another's 
burdens,  and  so  fulfill  the  law  of  Christ."  This 
teaches  us  that  there  should  be  mutual  care  and 
love  among  the  members  of  the  church  in  matters  of 
offence.  Sometimes  the  treatment  should  proceed 
from  the  church  as  a  whole  through  its  committees 
or  pastor,  but  generally  this  kind  of  treatment  of 
effences  should  come  from  the  pastor  and  the  private 
members  unofficially.  Of  course  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  going  so  far  with  this  sympathetic  treat- 
ment as  to  condone  offences  which  ought  to  be 
punished,  and  no  general  rule  can  be  made  in  such 
cases;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  kindly, 
sympathetic  warning  from  some  sincere  and  godly 


CHURCH   WORKIXG   FOR   ITSELF.  565 

member  of  the  church  would  go  far  toward  prevent- 
ino'  the  first  departiu-es  from  Christian  rectitude. 

There  is  need  to  be  on  guard  against  censorious- 
ness  in  approaching  those  who  have  sinned ;  and 
where  the  person,  especially  a  young  man,  has  been 
overtaken  in  some  teni])tation,  the  first  offence  ought 
to  be  treated  with  great  consideration  and  loving 
care.  Many  a  person  has  been  driven  away  who  might 
have  been  reclaimed  and  comforted  by  the  right  kind 
of  sympathetic  treatment. 

Ther-e  is  also  the  kind  of  treatment  which  may  be 
called  corrective.  It  is  more  severe  than  the  preced- 
ing, being  demanded  by  more  glaring  faults,  op  by 
the  repetition  of  those  which  have  once  been  tenderly 
dealt  with.  Admonition  and  rstoration  are  a  part 
of  corrective  discipline.  It  would  often  be  well  for 
the  church  to  admonish  a  member  whose  conduct 
was  not  satisfactory.  Sometimes  this  admonition 
might  be  administered  by  a  letter  from  the  church, 
or  by  a  visit  from  the  pastor,  not  only  as  a  shepherd 
looking  after  a  lost  sheep,  but  as  an  overseer  instruct- 
ed to  admonish.  Tt  would  often  have  a  good  effect 
on  the  erring  member,  instead  of  going  in  a  merely 
friendly  way,  to  go  rather  by  the  authority  and  vote 
of  the  church,  and  admonish  him  that  he  was  not 
living  as  a  Christian  ought  to  live.  Sometimes  the 
admonition  might  be  borne  by  a  commitee,  as  is  often 
the  case  in  dealing  with  offenders.  This  corrective 
discipline  is  too  much  neglected.  It  would  be  well 
to  exercise  more  of  it  and  let  people  understand  that 
discipline  does  not  always  and  only  mean  exclusion 
from  the  church. 

There  is  still  another  kind  of  discipline,  for  more 


666  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

aggravated  cases,  which  may  be  called  penal,  being 
an  infliction  of  punishment  upon  the  offender. 
Certainly  the  church  has  a  right  to  impose  penalities 
upon  those  who  depart  in  doctrine  or  morals  from 
her  accepted  standards.  There  are  two  classes  of 
I)enalties.  In  the  olden  times  our  fathers  used  censure 
and  suspension.  A  brother  was  sometims  publicly 
censured.  The  pastor  or  some  other  brother  was 
sometimes  instructed  to  call  the  name  of  the  offender 
before  the  Avhole  congregation,  and  to  censure  him 
soundly  for  dereliction  of  duty.  Sometimes  also  for 
some  offenses  persons  were  suspended  from  the  rights 
of  the  church  for  a  season —  suspended  from  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  from  right  of 
voting.  These  Avays  of  inflicting  discipline  have  for 
the  most  part  fallen  out  of  use.  It  is  a  question  well 
worthy  of  consideration  Avhether  they  should  not  be 
restored.  It  would  have  a  wholesome  effect  upon 
Christians  who  are  inclined  to  be  lax,  and  likewise 
upon  the  world  who  watch  so  closely,  and  would 
enable  them  to  understand  that  there  are  grades  in 
the  discipline  of  the  church;  not  that  every  trivial 
offence  called  for  exclusion,  but  that  every  offence 
would  be  noticed  and  visited  with  its  appropriate 
penalty.  If  the  members  of  the  church  and  others 
were  taught  by  the  cliurch  itself  to  see  and  know  that 
exclusion  is  the  last  thing  to  be  tried,  wiien  all  other 
measui-es  have  failed,  the  prejudices  against  dis- 
cipline would  be  very  largely  removed;  so  that  the 
church  might  freely  exercise  a  milder  infliction  of 
penalties,  and  at  the  same  time  formal  exclusion 
would  become  a  greater  terror,  and  would  have  a 
greater  dignity.  But  at  last  in  some  cases  there  must 


CHURCH   WORKING  FOR  ITSELF.  567 

be  exchisioii  by  formal  vote  of  the  church.  Tlie  name 
for  this  action  is  sometimes  varied  according  to  the 
gravity  of  the  offence,  as  "dropping  from  the  roll", 
•Svithdrawing  fellowship",  "turning  out  of  the 
church,"  and  "expulsion;"  but  "exclusion"  co\^rs 
all  cases,  and  the  act  amounts  to  that,  whatever 
name  be  given  to  it. 

An  important  question  arises  as  to  whose  duty 
it  is  to  take  the  initiative  in  the  matter  of  discipline. 
It  was  a  common  feeling  among  our  fathers,  and  no 
doubt  is  still  in  many  parts  of  the  country,  that  it 
is  the  right  or  duty  of  any  member  to  prefer  charges 
in  the  church  against  any  who  have  been  known  to 
be  guilty  of  uu-Christian  conduct;  and  this  right 
may  by  no  means  be  abridged  or  withheld.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  well  that  the  deacons,  or  in  some 
cases  a  standing  committee  on  discipline,  should 
have  the  special  oversight  of  the  matter,  keeping  the 
eye  upon  the  members  and  noticing  the  first  faults 
as  they  come  under  their  observation.  In  final 
action,  of  course,  the  church  alone  is  to  exercise  disci- 
pline. It  must  be  done  by  church  authority.  The  pas- 
tor's relation  to  discipline  is  one  of  greater  delicacy 
and  difficulty.  He  ought  not  weakly  to  tolerate  sins 
and  inconsistencies  in  his  flock;  yet  if  he  is  a  rigid 
disciplinarian,  or  makes  himself  busy  in  looking  out 
for  cases,  he  is  sure  to  render  himself  obnoxious  to 
many  good  people,  and  to  run  the  risk  of  being  a 
mere  censor.  He  should  not  be  wholly  inactive  on 
the  one  hand,  nor  officious  on  the  other.  Hardly  any 
part  of  the  pastor's  work  demands  so  much  of  deli- 
cacy, tact,  courage  and  firmness  as  the  discipline  of 
his  church. 


568  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

The  mode  of  procedure  iu  cases  of  discipline  re- 
quires a  few  words.  The  simplest  way  is  to  have  all 
cases  come  through  the  deacons  or  discipline  com- 
mittee, the  church  accepting  or  rejecting  their  report 
as  may  be  best.  Another  way  is  for  a  member  to 
report  another  and  have  the  case  referred  to  a  spec- 
ial committee  to  report  at  some  future  meeting. 
Sometimes  in  specially  difficult  cases  this  is  best.  In 
very  aggravated  cases  where  the  offence  is  greater 
and  the  evidence  very  plain,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
wait  and  summon  the  offender,  but  the  church  may 
take  summary  action.  Yet  in  general  it  is  best  to 
give  every  offender  a  chance  to  be  heard  in  his  own 
defence.  In  such  cases,  unless  the  offence  is  very 
grave,  the  church  often  has  the  privilege  of  restoring 
a  penitent  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  upon  his  con- 
fession and  promise  of  amendment.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to  inflict  penalty, 
notwithstanding  confession,  for  the  good  name  of 
the  church,  and  give  restoration  after  an  interval, 
in  case  of  confession  then  being  made. 

In  case  where  a  member  reports  himself  and  de- 
sires either  forgiveness  or  exclusion,  the  church  will 
act  as  each  case  requires.  But  it  is  usually  best  to 
refer  such  cases  to  the  stated  or  a  special  committee, 
or  sometimes  to  the  pastor.  Sometimes  a  member 
without  accusing  himself  of  any  act  requiring  disci- 
pline, simply  requests  the  withdrawal  of  fellowship, 
that  he  may  retire  from  membership.  The  propriety 
of  granting  such  a  request  has  been  often  denied,  the 
current  saying  being  that  there  are  only  two  ways 
of  getting  out  of  the  church — death  or  exclusion.  But 
surely  if  one  wishes  voluntarily  to  leave  a  church  he 


CHURCH   WORKING  FOR  ITSELF.  569 

ought  to  have  the  privilege,  just  the  same  as  for  com- 
ing in.  A  man  cannot  be  forced  to  incriminate  him- 
self in  order  to  withdraw  from  a  church.  But  in 
these  eases  the  church  ought  always  to  proceed  with 
caution,  and  carefully  investigate  the  facts  before 
granting  such  a  request.  It  has  a  right  to  know  the 
reasons  actuating  a  member  in  asking  for  with- 
drawal, and  of  guiding  its  action  accordingly. 


670  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  III. 

THE  EVANGELISTIC  WORK  OP  THE  CHURCH. 

I.  The  Work  Defined  and  Valued. 

1.  What  is  evangelization?    Simply  giving  the 
gospel  to  the  lost. 

2.  Relative  importance  of  this  work. 

(1)  In  light  of  Scripture. 

(2)  In  light  of  history. 

(3)  In  light  of  comparison. 

II.  The  Field  Survej-ed. 

1.  The  immediate  environment. 

2.  The  region,  or  city;  District  of  City  Missions. 

3.  The  State;  State  Missions. 

4.  The  country  at  large ;  Home  Missions. 

5.  The  world ;  Foreign  Missions. 

III.  The  Methods  Employed. 

1.  Work  of  individual  members. 

2.  Corporate  church  action. 

3.  Co-operation   with   other   churches.    Boards, 
Societies,  for  the  various  kinds  of  missions. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   EVANGELISTIC   WORK   OB^   THE   CHURCH.      SOUL 
WINNING  AND  MISSIONS. 

Having  discussed  the  clnireli  as  a  working;  force 
for  human  welfare,  and  its  primary  duty  to  maintain 
its  own  life  and  efficiency  as  an  instrument  for  reach- 
ing good  ends,  we  turn  now  to  consider  the  principal 
lines  of  the  church's  activity  for  objects  beyond  itself. 
That  it  should  expect  and  enjoy  blessings  upon  itself 
in  such  ministration  to  others,  is  both  natural  and 
right,  since  it  does  not  selfishly  work  for  this  as  an 
end.  The  main  work  of  the  church  for  mankind 
may  be  included  \inder  two  great  departments — • 
Evangelistic  and  Humanitarian.  The  first  includes 
soul  winning  and  missions;  the  second,  education, 
charity,  and  reform.  We  begin  with  the  evangelistic 
work. 

We  should  first  define  and  value  this  work.  What 
is  evangelization,  and  how  much  is  it  worth?  It  is 
simply  giving  the  gospel  of  Christ  to  mankind.  Faith, 
worship,  service  the  church  owes  to  God,  preserva- 
tion and  growth  it  owes  to  itself,  and  knowledge  of 
the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ  is  owes 
to  mankind.  Upon  what  principle  does  the  church 
work  in  giving  the  gospel  to  mankind?  Why  should 
it  busy  itself  with  the  proclamation  of  the  Saviour's 
presence  and  power  to  help?  The  fundamental 
principle  upon  which  the  church  acts  in  evangeliza- 

571 


572  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

tion  is  that  which  recognizes  in  their  necessary  rela- 
tions the  three  following  truths:  (1)  That  man  is 
by  nature  sinful  and  thereby  in  danger  of  eternal 
ruin.  This  is  not  a  popular  doctrine.  Man  is  ever 
prone  to  think  the  Scripture  representation  of  bis 
faults  is  exaggerated,  if  not  positively  incorrect.  The 
ruin  of  character  here,  and  the  awful  destiny  of 
unrepented  sin  in  the  world  to  come,  are  sound 
scriptural  teachings,  and  the  church  cannot  afford 
to  plant  itself  upon  any  other  foundation.  She  must 
have  a  just  and  lively  recognition  of  the  sinfulness 
and  danger  of  mankind.  (2)  The  gospel  is  the  only 
means  of  salvation.  In  some  quarters  this  is  beginn- 
ing to  be  an  unpopular  doctrine  also.  Some  are  even 
hinting,  if  not  directly  teaching,  that  the  kind  of 
religion  existing  in  any  nation  is  the  best  for  that 
nation.  The  church  which  acts  on  so  loose  a  theory 
of  her  mission  as  this  is  not  a  gospel  church.  If  our 
Lord  did  not  mean  exactly  what  he  said  when  he 
declared,  ''No  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by 
me,"  the  churcirs  mission  in  ^this  world  is  a  mistake 
and  will  be  a  failure.  We  must  remember  the  strong 
teaching  of  the  apostle  Peter  when  he  said,  "There 
is  none  other  name  given  under  heaven  among  men 
whereby  we  must  be  saved.''  The  naturalistic  in- 
terpretation of  the  religious  instinct  in  man  on  the 
evolutionary  basis  looks  upon  Christianity  simply 
as  a  development  of  human  thought,  denying  that 
it  is  a  divine  and  special  revelation ;  and,  therefore, 
this  habit  of  mind  has  no  sympathy  with  the  church's 
belief  that  the  gospel  is  the  only  remedy  for  sin.  (3) 
To  complete  the  triangle  of  truths,  the  church  must 
recognize  in  itself  the  divinely  appointed  instrument 


SOI'L-WINNING    AND    MISSIONS.  573 

for  bringing  the  gospel  to  men.  Tf  she  turns  it  over 
to  individuals,  or  looks  upon  herself  simply  as  a 
social  club,  she  has  again  mistaken  her  mission.  The 
church  is  the  divinely  a|)pointed  intermediary  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  suffering  world.  It  is  her 
business  to  sit  at  his  feet  and  learn  of  him,  and  to 
teach  the  world  to  do  likewise.  It  is  her  duty  and 
privilege  to  reach  out  and  uplift  those  who  need  her 
gracious  ministries.  In  the  proper  relation  of  these 
three  truths  to  each  other,  and  upon  the  practical 
recognition  of  them  as  a  basis  of  all  endeavors,  the 
church  sees  her  duty  and  her  ojtportunity. 

Let  us  ask,  What  is  the  relative  importance  of 
evangelization?  The  church  has  other  things  to  do. 
She  must  worship  God.  She  must  reach  out  the  hand 
of  benevolence  and  heli)ful  ministry  to  the  poor,  the 
sick  and  the  needy;  and  there  are  many  other  Avays 
in  which  the  church  should  exercise  itself.  But  in 
comparing  the  other  activities  of  the  church  with 
her  duty  to  give  the  gospel  to  mankind,  what  place 
should  this  have  in  the  estimation  of  Christians? 
No  thoughtful  reader  of  the  Bible  can  doubt  that  it 
teaches  man's  needs,  Christ's  sufficiency,  and  the 
church's  instrumentality.  It  puts  the  first  emphasis 
upon  the  spiritual  work  of  the  church.  It  is  true 
that  our  Lord  healed  the  sick  and  helped  the  needy. 
It  is  true  that  James  bids  us  visit  the  fatherless  and 
the  widows,  and  to  keep  ourselves  unspotted  from 
the  world,  and  these  duties  need  not  be  neglected. 
But  surely  the  Bible  makes  it  clear  that  the  church's 
prime  mission  to  mankind  is  that  of  a  spiritual 
helper. 

Again,  if  we  look  at  the  matter  in  the  light  of 


574:  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

Christian  history  we  shall  undoubtedly  find  that  all 
along  its  pathway  those  churches  which  have  paid 
the  most  attention  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  mankind 
have  been  the  most  growing  and  influential  among 
the  bodies  of  Christians.  The  best  Christian  thought 
harmonizes  with  the  scriptural  view.  The  great 
revivals  in  all  Christian  ages  have  proceeded  upon 
a  recognition  of  the  spiritual  needs  of  man  and  of 
the  duty  of  the  church  to  minister  to  those  wants. 
Whenever  the  church  has  become  secularized,  or  her 
energies  have  been  dissipated  in  other  channels,  how- 
ever worthy,  she  has  languished  and  suffered ;  but 
wherever  she  has  been  faithful  to  the  great  truths  of 
which  we  have  been  speaking,  she  has  clearly  appre- 
hended the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  and  ha^  gone 
forward  in  strength  and  usefulness. 

Again,  in  the  light  of  candid  comparsion,  giving 
due  estimate  to  all  the  kinds  of  activity  in  which  the 
church  may  be  engaged,  there  ought  not  to  be  any 
doubt  that  her  spiritual  mission  is  primary-;  for  this 
work  of  the  church  is  for  man  as  a  sinner,  the  other 
activities  of  the  church  are  for  him  chiefly  as  a 
sufferer.  This  work  is  for  his  soul  and  for  his  eternal 
interests,  the  others  are  for  the  mind  and  body  and 
his  earthly  interests.  This  has  primary  concern 
with  his  relations  to  his  God,  the  other  with  his  re- 
lations to  his  fellow-men.  The  conclusion  is  evident, 
the  greater  includes  the  less,  the  spiritual  is  more 
important  than  the  physical.  Certainly  all  this  does 
not  demand  that  evangelization  should  be  the 
church's  only  work.  Other  works  are  good  and  pro- 
foundly important,  but  they  should  be  recognized  as 
inferior,  and  should  be  made  subordinate  to  the  one 


SOUL-WINMNG    AND    MISSIONS.  575 

grand  mission  of  the  church  in  the  world  to  minister 
to  the  sin-sick  and  suffering  souls  of  mankind. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  human 
society  as  the  great  general  sphere  of  the  church's 
work,  but  it  is  necessary  at  this  point  more  parti- 
cularly to  survey  the  field  of  her  distinctively 
evangelistic  labors.  For  clearness  of  thinking  and 
convenience  of  effort  this  great  work  of  soul  winning 
and  missions  may  be  put  into  five  great  departments 
or  concentric  circles  of  influence,  including  each 
other  successively.  These  are  :  the  imediate  environ- 
ment of  the  church,  and  then  the  four  sorts  of  mis- 
sions: district  (or  city),  state,  home  and  foreign. 

We  notice  first  the  immediate  environment  in 
which  the  church  is  placed,  the  people  who  can  be 
directly  reached  by  its  labors.  By  no  means  must 
the  larger  spheres  of  the  church's  work  conduce  to 
the  neglect  of  this.  The  church  that  has  great  in- 
terest in  the  Hottentots,  the  Chinese  and  the  Pata- 
gonians,  but  cannot  see  the  heathen  at  its  doors,  is 
making  a  great  mistake.  The  churches  must  not 
overlook  the  demands  of  those  around  them,  and 
while  they  cannot  wait  to  evangelize  every  locality 
before  reaching  out,  yet  they  must  not  neglect  their 
immediate  local  work.  There  are,  generally  speaking, 
two  methods  of  reaching  the  immediate  locality  of 
the  church.  One  is  by  the  attraction  of  the  people 
in  various  ways  to  the  regular  and  special  services 
of  the  church.  There  is  a  vast  amount  of  cheap, 
tawdry,  offensive  advertising,  sensational  preaching, 
and  catchy  announcements.  These  may  indeed 
attract  the  curosity  of  the  vulgar,  but  they  ought  not 
to  be  depended  upon  as  the  principal  means  of  call- 


-     576  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

ing  and  winning  the  masses  to  attendance  at  the 
church.  The  other  Avay  is  more  aggressive,  more 
direct,  more  outgoing,  that  is,  that  the  church  should 
seek  the  people  and  bring  the  gospel  to  them,  both 
to  families  and  to  individuals.  The  church  must 
not  simply  ring  its  bell  and  play  its  organ  and  ex- 
pect the  people  to  come,  but  the  pastor,  the  com- 
mittees, and  above  all  the  individual  members  of  the 
church,  must  all  reach  out  and  visit  the  sick,  the 
poor,  the  stranger,  and  go  out  in  the  highways  and 
the  hedges  and  even  comiiel  them  to  come  in. 

Then  there  are  the  various  spheres  of  evangelistic 
effort  known  comprehensivelj^  as  Missions,  and  of 
these  first  City,  or  District  Missions.  This  field  is 
that  of  the  city,  town  or  region  in  which  the  church 
is  situated.  Here  the  church  must  reach  out  just 
beyond  itself.  It  must  seek  to  evangelize  those  who 
may  not  be  expected  to  enter  its  own  precincts  or  to 
become  members  of  its  corporate  body.  In  reaching 
a  district  that  lies  around  the  church  a  combination 
of  the  direct  and  co-operative  methods  must  be 
used.  There  is  a  direct  work  of  the  church  for  the 
outlying  districts  around  it.  Frequently  churches 
have  Sunday-schools  and  preaching  places  in  certain 
localities,  not  immediately  in  contact  with  it,  but 
near  enough  for  the  members  to  take  active  part. 
This  is  done  both  in  towns  and  in  the  country, 
though,  as  is  natural,  more  largely  in  the  town  than 
in  the  country  regions.  But  besides  these  direct 
means  the  churches  should  also  use  the  plan  of  co- 
operative effort,  that  is,  several  churches  might  unite 
in  the  support  of  a  missionary  or  evangelist  or  col- 
porter,  or  might  work  together  in  sending  out  bands 


SOUL-WINNIXG   AND    MISSIONS.  57T 

of  their  active  members  in  loving  co-operation  for 
good  among  the  unreached  masses  in  their  common 
territory.  There  is  dillficulty  sometimes  in  securing 
the  proper  co-operation  and  in  securing  the  service 
of  the  best  men  for  this  work ;  but  still  it  is  feasible 
and  has  been  done,  and  is  now  carried  on  with  ex- 
cellent results  by  many  churches. 

Next  above  district  missions  we  have  in  the 
United  States,  and  peculiar  to  our  own  country, 
growing  out  of  our  territorial  divisions,  a  field  of 
effort  which  we  are  in  the  habit  of  denominating 
State  Missions.  The  churches  in  any  one  State  unite 
in  convention,  raise  means,  appoint  committees  and 
employ  missionaries  to  reach  the  communities  that 
have  not  been  fulh-  or  properly  evangelized.  The  way 
in  which  this  work  is  carried  on  is  very  familiar. 
The  churches  send  messengers  to  the  associations, 
or  to  the  convention  within  the  State.  These  mes- 
sengers appoint  some  board  or  committee  that  em- 
ploys an  agent  who  gives  his  time  to  the  personal 
supervision  of  the  work  as  far  as  possible,  securing 
means  and  appointing  men  who  shall  labor  in  certain 
localities. 

Extending  beyond  the  confines  of  the  State  there 
are  many  parts  of  our  county  Avhei-e  the  State  organi- 
zations are  too  feeble  to  do  much  toward  supplying 
the  religious  destitution  which  prevails  in  the  newer 
States;  and  sometimes  in  the  older  ones  there  are 
large  tracts  of  country  more  or  less  thinly  inhabited 
where  religious  influence  is  very  scanty  and 
churches  are  almost  unknown.  It  is  usual  for  us 
to  speak  of  this  field  as  that  of  Home  Missions.  The 
term,  however,  is  inaptly  chosen.    Some  persons  who 


578  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

are  not  accustomed  to  read  the  papers,  or  attend 
the  denominational  meetings,  frequently  need  to  be 
informed  that  "home  missions''  does  not  mean  mis«- 
sions  just  around  the  home,  but  really  far  beyond 
their  home.  Some  confuse  State  Missions  with  Home 
Missions  and  some  even  District  Missions  with 
Home  Missions.  Keally  what  we  call  Home  Missions 
are  national  missions.  There  is  a  great  need  for  this 
work.  The  Home  Mission  Board  of  the  Southern 
Baptist  Convention,  and  the  American  Baptist  Home 
Mission  Society  have  done  a  great  and  glorious 
work  in  sending  out  missionaries  and  colporters  into 
the  newer  States  of  the  South  and  West ;  and  among 
the  negroes  of  the  South.  Since  the  Civil  War  our 
country  has  received  into  its  broad  bosom  a  won- 
derfully large  and  varied  stream  of  immigration. 
All  peoples,  nations  and  languages  are  represented  in 
our  land.  The  great  duty  of  evangelizing  these,  of 
giving  them  the  pure  word  of  God,  rests  upon  the 
churches  of  Christ.  And  then  it  is  appalling  to  think 
how  man}'  of  our  American  people  have  grown  up 
in  almost  heathenish  ignorance  of  the  first  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  There  are  vast  tracts  of 
our  great  country  not  yet  evangelized,  and  many 
homes  and  communities  fearfully  destitute  of  the 
privileges  of  the  gospel. 

And  lastly,  we  touch  the  great  field  of  Foreign 
Missions.  These  are  missions  in  all  lands,  among  all 
peoples,  the  world  over.  Here  one  would  like  to 
venture  upon  a  change  of  designation.  There  is 
something  repellant  in  the  word  "foreign."  If  we 
could  get  our  churches  to  feel  that  not  so  much 
^'foreign''  missions,  but  world-wide  missions  is  the 


SOT'L-WIXXIXG    AND    MISSIONS.  579 

object  of  their  endeavors,  it  would  perhaps  have  a 
more  inspiring  and  enlightening  effect.  Tlie  object  of 
World-wide  Missions,  as  explained  in  its  name,  is  to 
fill  the  whole  world  with  the  knowledge  of  Ood.  It 
is  a  great  thing  that  none  are  so  weak,  so  needy  in 
themselves,  so  poor,  that  they  cannot  have  a  part  in 
sending  the  gospel  of  Christ  all  the  world  over.  It 
is  passing  strange  and  culpable  that  our  churches 
should  not  feel  the  grandeur  and  importance  of  this 
work — that  a  pastor  should  fail  to  arouse  the  people 
to  assist  in  so  world-wide  and  glorious  a  work  as 
this. 

The  methods  employed  by  the  church  in  ]»r(»si'(nt- 
ing  its  evangelistic  work  must  now  engage  our  atten- 
tion. In  a  former  chapter  the  church  was  studied 
as  a  working  unit  combining  in  itself  individual 
Christians  and  co-operating  in  large  organizations 
with  other  churches.  We  must  now  apply  this  prin- 
ciple to  evangelization,  and  so  we  shall  see  that  the 
church  works  partly  through  its  individual  meml)ers, 
partly  by  itself  in  what  may  be  called  corporate 
activity,  and  partly  by  co-operation  with  other 
churches. 

In  prosecuting  its  work  of  giving  the  gospel  to  the 
lost  through  -the  agency  of  its  own  members  individu- 
ally and  separately,  the  church  has  a  great  mission, 
and  is  doing  a  work  of  unspeakable  value  to  man- 
kind. Several  times  already  the  great  duty  and 
privilege  of  personal  work  has  been  insisted  upon, 
and  all  the  members  of  the  church  should  feel  the 
burden  of  this  obligation  resting  upon  them.  Now 
this  work  of  reaching  souls  witb  the  gospel  message 
is  naturally  done  from  the  church  point  of  view,  and 


580  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

while  the  church  member  works  with  the  high  pur- 
pose to  save  a  soul  from  death,  he  also  is  influenced  by 
the  desire  to  add  a  member  to  his  church.  Of  course 
this  may  degenerate  into  objectionable  proselytism; 
but  if  the  man  really  believes  in  his  church  as  the 
right  one,  he  cannot  be  indifl'erent  on  the  point  of 
inducing  others  to  join  it.  Unseemly  rivalry  with 
other  churches  and  underhand  means  to  gain  mem* 
bers  at  their  expense  are  certainly  unworthy  of 
Christians,  but  a  fair,  open  and  honest  etfort  to  in- 
duce men,  first  to  become  Christians,  and  then  to 
unite  with  the  church  which  the  worker  loves,  is  not 
only  right  but  an  incumbent  duty.  In  addition  to 
these  personal  efforts  of  the  individual  members  of 
the  church  they  also  take  part  in  its  evangelistic 
work  by  contributing  money.  Each  one  ought  to 
have  his  part  in  this  department  of  the  church's 
labor.  No  church  ought  to  be  satisfied  until  every 
member,  who  is  at  all  able  to  do  it,  contributes  some- 
thing for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  at  home  and 
.abroad.  Of  course  the  church  is  the  channel  through 
which  these  individual  gifts  are  bestowed.  It  usually 
collects  and  applies  the  gifts  of  the  individual  mem- 
bers to  the  larger  organizations  and  their  com- 
mittees for  giving  the  gospel  to  the  heathen,  as  well 
as  to  the  unbelievers  nearer  our  doors.  Thus  the 
church  works  through  the  members  and  in  a  measure 
directs  their  activities. 

Yet  there  are  some  things  which  the  church  as  such, 
that  is,  in  its  corporate  life  and  activity  as  an  instru- 
ment for  service,  must  do  to  promote  its  work  of 
evangelization.  One  of  these  is  in  providing  houses 
of  worship  and  other  institutions  which  are  proper 


SOUL-WINNING    AND    MISSIONS.  581 

to  the  church's  work  in  making  known  the  gospel  to 
mankind.  Every  church  ought  to  be  a  beacon  liglit 
for  good  in  the  community  in  which  it  is  situated; 
and  most  of  the  property  and  appliances  of  the 
church  may  be  made  to  serve  this  glorious  end.  In 
its  worship  the  church  should  also  have  evangelism 
in  view.  This  will  be  discussed  in  the  chapters  on 
worship,  and  need  not  here  be  anticipated;  yet  it  is 
not  inappr(ti)riate  here  to  say  that  worship  which 
does  not  win  and  impress  the  world  for  Christ  is 
mistaken,  if  not  positively  wrong.  Another  way  in 
which  the  church  evangelizes  is  by  supporting  the 
l)reacher  who  ]»roclaims  the  truth,  the  pastor  who 
goes  among  the  people  dispensing  the  bread  of  life. 
The  pastor  ought  not  be  allowed  by  his  church  to  be 
so  taken  up  with  secular  duties  as  to  omit  or  neglect 
looking  out,  as  a  watchman  on  the  walls  of  Zion, 
for  the  souls  of  the  people.  One  of  the  mistakes  of 
our  modern  church  life  is  to  crowd  the  busy  pastor 
with  so  many  matters  of  detail  in  the  administration 
of  general  interests  that  he  shall  neglect  the  great 
duty  of  looking  out  for  the  spiritual  interests  of  in- 
dividuals. Sometimes  it  is  well  for  the  church,  when 
it  is  able  to  do  so,  to  provide  those  who  shall  assist 
the  pastor  in  the  spiritual  work  of  the  church.  And 
sometimes  individual  churches  may  have  representa- 
tives on  some  Mission  field.  And  this  brings  us  to 
consider  another  way  in  which  the  church  evangel- 
izes, that  is,  by  co-operation  with  others. 

Under  the  sanction  and  sometimes  by  the  express 
authority  of  the  local  churches  organizations  are 
formed  to  promote  mission  work  at  home  or  abroad. 
The  history  and  growth  of  these  co-operative  church 


582  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH, 

bodies  is  one  of  great  interest.  The  church's  part 
in  this  work  is  done  by  collecting  funds,  by  creating 
interest,  and  by  appointing  messengers  and  direct- 
ing the  work  committed  to  them.  All  these  methods 
of  work  are  quite  familiar  and  scarcely  need  any- 
thing more  than  a  suggestive  touch.  There  are 
Boards  or  Committees  for  District  and  City  Mis- 
sions. Conventions  and  General  Associations  with 
their  Boards  for  State  Missions  and  Colportage, 
and  Societies  and  Conventions  with  their  Boards 
for  Foreign  Missions. 

And  so  from  its  own  immediate  environment  the 
local  church  may  reach  out  to  the  end  of  the  earth 
in  its  efforts  to  send  the  message  of  salvation  by 
Christ  to  all  the  earth.  Some  of  the  large  and 
wealthy  churches  are  well  able  to  support  one  or 
more  misionaries  on  the  foreign  field,  and  some  are 
actually  doing  so. 

Of  course,  it  is  better  that  they  should  co-operate 
with  the  denominational  boards  and  societies,  and 
not  send  out  their  own  missionaries  independently; 
for  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  established 
denominational  methods  of  the  churches,  and  each 
church  would  do  better  to  keep  itself  in  touch  with 
the  denominational,  missionary  and  general  spirit 
of  the  churches.  For  it  is  not  likely  that  much  is 
gained  in  the  way  of  economy  or  efficiency  by  in- 
dependent missions ;  jet,  if  a  church  chooses  to  send 
out  its  own  missionaries  to  a  certain  field  and  sup- 
port them  there  by  direct  contributions,  there  is 
no  law  to  prevent  it  from  doing  so,  and  many 
blessed  results  may  follow. 

There    are    various    methods    of    arousins    and 


SOUL-WINNIXG   AND    MISSIONS. 


583 


snslaining-  Diissiouary  intei-ost  ainonj;  the  mem- 
bers of  the  clnu'ches.  Soiiietimes  societies  are 
formed  witliin  the  chnrcli.  mission  bands  among 
the  children,  women's  societies  and  missionary 
circles.  There  ought  to  be  stated  and  special 
meetings  held  in  the  churches  in  behalf  of  missions. 
There  is  no  reason  why  a  pastor  should  not  several 
times  a  year,  depending  upon  the  frequency  of  his 
services,  have  a  special  day  for  missionary  informa- 
tion. It  is  not  always  necessary  or  wise  that  a  col- 
lection should  be  taken,  but  that  the  meeting  should 
be  a  missionary  meeting.  Besides  this,  at  least  once 
a  month,  the  regular  prayer  meeting  of  the  church 
should  be  devoted  to  missions.  The  monthly  Concert 
of  Prayer  for  missions  that  our  grandfathers  held 
was  a  blessed  institution,  and  it  is  a  pity  that  it  has 
been  allowed  to  lapse.  At  these  meetings  informa- 
tion can  be  given,  prayers  made,  and  the  great  mo- 
tives for  missionary  efforts  constantly  enforced. 

In  all  this  work  of  evangelization,  from  the  local 
out  to  the  world-wide,  the  church  should  seek  the 
influence  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  No  man 
who  is  at  the  head  of  a  church  for  leadership,  how- 
ever small  that  church  may  be,  is  out  of  contact  with 
the  great  pur])oses  of  God  for  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind. Whoever  can  lead  and  develop  the  activities  of 
a  church  in  promoting  the  cause  of  Christ  on  earth, 
and  winning  the  souls  of  men  at  home  or  abroad  is 
engaged  in  a  blessed  and  glorious  work.  Far  beyond 
any  human  computation  is  the  value  to  mankind 
of  the  evangelizing  work  of  the  local  church. 


684  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  HUMANITARIAN  WORK  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

I  Education. 

1.  Historical  view. 

(1)  Ancient  and  mediaeval  times. 

(2)  Modern  times 

2.  Denominational  schools. 

(1)  History. 

(2)  Kinds. 

(3)  Problems. 

3.  Relation  of  Baptist  cliiirclies  to  their  schools. 

(1)  Establishment. 

(2)  Maintenance. 

(3)  Control. 

II.  Charity. 

1.  Historical  view. 

(1)  Ancient  and  mediaeval  times. 

(2)  Modern  times. 

2.  Relation  of  the  church  to  charity. 

(1)  Its  own  poor. 

(2)  Denominational  charities. 

(3)  Public  charities. 

III.  Reform. 

1.  Modern  reform  movements. 

2.  Relation  of  the  churches  to  reform. 

(1)  Negative. 

(2)  Positive. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   HUMAMTAIUAN   WORK  OF  THE  CHURCH. 
EDUCATION CHARITY — REFORM. 

This  is  a  vast  subject,  and  it  would  i-CMiuii-e 
volumes  to  treat  it  adequately ;  but  in  reviewing  the 
work  of  the  churches  it  is  necessary  to  take  some 
account  of  their  humanitarian  enterprises,  though 
it  must  be  done  in  a  brief  and  unsatisfactory  manner. 
The  subject  is  itself  one  of  very  great  and  increasing 
intei-est.  It  is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  the  pastors 
and  the  members  of  the  churches  should  have  in- 
telligent convictions  as  to  the  line  of  duty  Avhich  the 
churches  should  take  in  the  matter  of  education, 
charity,  and  reform. 

We  begin  with  education.  The  vital  relation  of 
the  churches  to  human  culture  appears  in  the  very 
nature  of  Christianity  as  a  system  of  thought  and 
as  a  moral  power,  and  is  shown  in  its  actual  history 
as  unfolded  in  the  course  of  time. 

In  regard  to  the  times  before  the  Reformation, 
Mr.C.  L.  Brace  says:*  ''The  Christian  Church  from 
the  very  first  centuries  naturally  connected  itself 
with  the  school."  Councils  and  synods  at  various 
dates  passed  canons  upon  the  subject  of  education. 
The  (M)unci]  which  met  at  Rome  in  Ihe  year  820 
''ordered  three  kinds  of  schools  to  be  formed  in  all 

*  Ge>>ta  Christi.  p.  2 18. 

585 


586  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

Christendom.  Firstly,  episcopal  schools  in  towns; 
secondly,  village  schools,  and,  thirdly,  wherever 
necessary."  Charlemagne  took  great  interest  in 
education.  In  the  eighth  century  he  established 
grammar  schools  all  over  his  empire,  and  adopted 
the  principle  of  compulsory  education,  requiring  the 
children  of  rich  and  poor  alike  to  attend  the  schools. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  monasteries  in  the  Dark 
Ages  were  sometimes  the  only  places  of  culture.  To 
the  quiet  cell  of  many  a  monk  learning  fled,  and  in 
these  retreats  flourished  in  the  times  of  ignorance 
and  barbarism.  During  the  Middle  Ages  many  of  the 
great  universities  had  their  origin,  and  these  were 
for  the  most  part  founded  and  maintained  by  dis- 
tinctively Christian  influences.  The  character  of 
education  was,  of  course,  defective  when  judged 
by  modern  standards,  and  the  quality  of  the  religion 
which  found  expression  in  these  schools  was  not 
such  as  Protestants  would  now  be  willing  to  accept ; 
but  the  general  truth  is  apparent  that  Catholic 
Christianity  favored  education,  and  that  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  culture  of  the  world  was  allied  with 
Christianity  as  it  was  understoood  and  interpreted 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Since  the  Reformation  the  Catholic  Church  has 
continued  in  all  lauds  its  work  of  education.  One 
of  its  most  important  and  powerful  means  of  sus- 
taining itself  is  its  great  system  of  schools.  Nor 
have  the  Protestants  failed  to  recognize  education 
as  an  essential  part  of  church  work.  Luther  and 
Calvin  both  favored  public  schools  under  the  state- 
church  system.  Thus  the  public  schools  of  Europe 
have,  by  means  of  the  different  governments,  come 


EDUCATION,,  CHARITY,  REFOltM.  587 

more  directly  under  chnrch  infinence  Tliaii  is  the  case 
in  the  United  States.  In  the  universities  also  this 
is  true.  Not  only  are  theological  faculties  a  part 
of  the  state  establishments,  but  the  church  through 
government  is  largely  inliuential  in  the  management 
the  universities.  Tn  addition  to  these  great  gov- 
ernmental institutions  there  have  been  various  de- 
nominational schools,  especially  in  England,  sup- 
ported as  among  us  by  the  voluntary  contributions 
and  endowments  of  the  dilTerent  Christian  sects. 

In  our  country  there  is  a  very  different  situation 
in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  Christian  denomina- 
tions to  education.  Owing  to  the  separation  of 
church  and  state,  the  great  multiplication  and 
rivalry  of  the  sects,  the  rapid  development  of  the 
country,  the  vast  increase  of  the  population,  and  in 
general  the  peculiarities  of  our  civilization,  a  widely 
different  state  of  affairs  exists.  Here,  as  elsewhere, 
we  have  our  own  problems  to  meet  without  much 
help  from  the  traditions  and  precedents  of  the  Old 
World.  Denominational  and  state  schools  co-exist 
in  our  country,  from  the  academy  uj)  to  the  uni- 
versity. The  general  government  maintains  mili- 
tary and  naval  academies,  but  no  great  university. 
The  various  States  have  different  kinds  of  educa- 
tional establishments.  On  the  whole  American  Chris- 
tianity has  shown  itself  decidedly  spmpathetic  with 
education,  and  American  education  has  been  pre- 
dominantly under  Christian  influence. 

The  denominational  schools  in  the  United  States 
have  a  very  interesting  and  important  history.  The 
two  oldest  colleges  established  in  America,  viz.: 
Harvard  in  1636-9,  and  William  and  Marv  in  Vir- 


588  WORK  AND  V/ORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

ginia,  in  1693,  grew,  as  was  natural,  out  of  the  state- 
church  arrangements  then  existing  in  their  respec- 
tive commonwealths.  The  States  of  Massachusetts 
and  Virginia  have  made  appropriations  from  time 
to  time  to  these  ancient  institutions,  but  on  the 
breaking  up  of  the  state-church  in  these  old  com- 
monwealths religious  sentiments  did  not  wholly  lose 
their  control  of  the  colleges.  Harvard  was  captured 
by  the  Unitarians  in  1805.  and  while  it  is  undenomi- 
national it  still  is  decidedly  Unitarian  in  its  man- 
agement and  sentiments.  William  and  Mary,  while 
never  controlled  by  any  one  denomination,  has  been, 
as  was  natural,  rather  more  closely  connected  with 
the  Episcopal  church  than  with  any  other  denomi- 
nation. Leaving  out  these  two  ancient  colleges,  most 
of  the  others  have  been  distinctively  and  avowedly 
denominational  from  the  very  beginning,  though 
there  has  been  more  or  less  admixture  of  local  and 
civil  control  in  their  management.  Every  important 
sect  in  the  United  States,  and  many  of  the  smaller 
ones,  has  its  own  school  or  schools,  commonly  one, 
but  sometimes  several  in  each  State.  In  their  strug- 
gles, their  undue  multiplication,  their  rivalries  and 
quarrels,  their  rise  and  fall,  and  their  substantial 
achievements  as  well,  these  denominational  schools 
are  a  remarkable  phenomenon  in  the  history  of  our 
country. 

First  of  all,  there  is  the  academy  or  high  school. 
There  are  many  such  schools  under  denominational 
control,  and  more  of  this  sort  are  needed  as  feeders 
to  the  higher  institutions.  Many  denominations 
have  bestirred  themselves  to  establish  colleges  rather 
prematurely,   and   have   absorbed  their  means   and 


Eni'CATION.  CHARITY,,  REFORM.  589 

efiforts  in  trying  to  build  up  stronger  institutions 
than  they  could  manage,  to  the  neglect  of  primary 
and  secondary  schools.  Next  come  the  colleges. 
These  are  for  the  different  sexes.  Sometimes  the  col- 
leges for  males  and  females  are  located  in  the  same 
town.  In  recent  years  the  question  of  co-education 
has  received  much  attention,  and  for  the  sake  of 
economical  management  and  better  facilities  for  girls 
many  of  the  denominational  schools  have  become 
co-educational.  There  are  undoubted  advantages  in 
co-education,  and  undoubted  disadvantages  also. 
Among  our  people  some  prefer  co-education,  and 
some  the  separate  education  of  the  sexes,  and  there 
should  be  schools  to  meet  both  these  demands.  Next 
comes  the  university.  Not  many  of  these  are  needed. 
Many  so  called  universities  have  named  themselves 
in  advance  of  their  actual  achievements.  It  is  de- 
sirable, however,  to  have  a  few  real  universities 
under  denominational  control.  Next  comes  the 
theological  seminary.  Of  these,  two  sorts  must  be 
recognized.  Sometimes  the  theological  department 
of  a  university  gives  a  good  course  of  theological  in- 
struction, and  siicli  ;ui  arrangement,  where  there  is 
large  endownment.  might  be  desirable  for  the  sake 
of  unity  of  management  and  for  the  contact  of  young 
men  with  each  otlu-r  in  preparation  for  the  various 
pursuits  and  callings  of  life.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
separate  theological  .seminary,  based  upon  the  whole 
denominational  foundation  and  confining  itself 
strictly  to  theological  education,  has  numerous  ad- 
vantages. In  this  matter,  as  in  i-egard  to  co-educa- 
tion, there  is  room  for  both  kinds,  and  it  is  likely 
that  there  will  be  both  kinds  of  theological  schooh. 


590  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

Mention  might  be  made  here  also  of  technical 
schools,  thono-h  few  if  any  of  these  are  especially 
denominational.  If  there  must  be  schools  of  tech- 
nology there  is  no  good  reason  why  these  also  should 
not  be  included  under  denominational  control,  both 
in  the  way  of  being  departments  of  the  universities 
and  of  having  a  separate  existence  of  their  own. 

Some  serious  problems  confront  the  denomina- 
tional school  at  present.  Many  dispute  their  neces- 
sity. It  is  natural  for  those  who  are  opposed,  or  in- 
different, to  Christianity,  to  look  upon  the  state  as 
the  only  proper  authority  in  education  and  to  dis- 
parage the  reasons  for  having  denominational  col- 
leges; and  it  must  be  admitted  also  that  some  Chris- 
tians are  not  thoroughly  satisfied  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  different  sects,  at  so  great  an  expenditure  of 
money  and  energy,  to  maintain  denominational 
schools  parallel  with  the  state  schools.  Some  say 
there  is  no  need  for  the  denominational  schools  since 
the  state  is  richer  than  any  one  denomination,  and 
has  the  power  and  resources  to  establish  schools  of 
better  grade.  Others  urge  that  it  would  be  better 
for  all  the  people  to  unite  on  their  colleges  and  uni- 
versities than  to  be  divided  out  among  so  many 
struggling  institutions.  There  is  undoubted  force 
in  these  views.  But  on  the  other  hand,  many  are  pro- 
foundly convinced  that  there  is  still  a  place  and  a 
need  for  the  distinctively  denominational  school. 
This  grows  out  of  the  reason  for  the  existence  of 
the  denominations  themselves.  Waiving  the  ques- 
tion, which  has  been  discussed  elsewhere,  of  organic 
Christian  union,  we  may  safely  assume  that  different 
denominations  of  Christians  will  exist  as  long  as 


EDUCATION,  CriARTTY,  REFORM.  591 

men  do  not  think  the  same  way  npon  religious 
problems  and  duties.  Each  denomination,  if  true 
to  its  beliefs,  has  every  reason  for  maintaining  it- 
self. So  the  ([uestion  of  denominational  enterprises 
thus  becomes  wrapped  up  with  the  separate  ex- 
istence of  each  sect.  No  iron-clad  rule  can  be  laid 
down  in  regard  to  this  matter,  but  u])on  the  Avhole 
it  is  certainly  desirable  that  in  imparting  knowledge 
the  Christian  churches  should  have  some  schools 
which  they  can  control,  and  where  their  own  tenets 
shall  at  least  be  respected  and  exy)lained,  if  not  dis- 
tinctly taught.  P»esides  all  this,  and  what  is  far 
more  important,  the  Christian  school,  is  needed  as 
a  wholesome  check  and  influence  upon  other  schools 
and  upon  the  progress  of  thought  and  culture  within 
human  society.  There  is  danger  always  that  the 
public  schools,  being  undenominational,  may  be  un- 
christian, if  not  anti-Christian.  But  as  long  as 
the  denominational  schools  exist,  the  state  and  other 
non-Christian  schools  cannot  afford  to  be  distinctly 
anti-Christian. 

Another  serious  question  which  confronts  the  de- 
nominational college  is  in  i*egard  to  its  relaitions 
and  rivalries.  Schools  of  the  same  denomination,  if 
there  be  more  than  one  or  two  in  the  State,  will 
often  be  thrown  into  undesirable  rivalry  with  each 
other.  Then  again,  the  schools  of  the  different  de- 
nominations competing  for  the  undenominational 
patronage  may  sometimes  intensify  rather  than  al- 
lay sectarian  prejudice  and  conflicts.  But  there  is 
every  reason  that  the  different  denominational 
schools  in  the  State  should  have  sacred  regard  to 
each  others  interests,  and  work  along  in  friendlv 


592  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

co-operation,  rather  than  in  sinful  and  useless  com- 
petition. A  more  serious  difficulty,  however,  is  the 
question  as  to  the  relation  the  denominational  school 
should  sustain  to  the  state  institutions,  and  the  in- 
evitable rivalries  growing  out  of  these  relations. 
Mutual  jealousies  and  friction  over  patronage,  with 
resultant  unfriendly  criticisms  too  often  occur. 
There  should  rather  be  sympathy,  co-operation, 
mutual  respect.  Granting  that  both  state  and 
church  must  educate,  and  that  state  and  church  must 
be  separate,  then  both  kinds  of  schools  must  exist. 
As  things  are  in  the  United  States  the  only  distinctly 
Christian  education  in  this  country  must  be  under 
denominational  auspices.  It  would  be  a  calamity 
past  computation  for  Christianity  to  leave  to  wholly 
■secular  influences  the  education  of  our  youth.  Other 
problems  of  the  denominational  schools  in  general 
may  be  quite  as  well  discussed  under  the  relation  of 
the  Baptist  churches  to  their  schools,  a  topic  which 
we  now  take  up. 

Baptists  have  no  need  to  apologize  for  their  re- 
lations to  education  in  this  country.  No  doubt 
many  mistakes  have  been  made.  There  have  been 
resulting  losses  and  disasters.  Some  schools  have 
gone  down  and  have  been  forgotten,  others  have  been 
badly  located,  wretchedly  equipped,  made  too  pre- 
tentious ;  and  various  other  wrong  things  have  hap- 
pened; but  granting  all  these  things  there  is  no 
good  reason  why  Baptists  should  mournfully  charge 
themselves  with  any  pre-eminence  of  failure  and 
mistake  in  these  respects.  The  truth  is  that  the 
Baptists  of  this  country  hold  an  honorable  place 
along  with  the  other  Christian  denominations  in  the 


EDUCATION,  CIIAUITV.  RKFORM.  593 

establishment  and  maintenance  of  schools  of  manr 
kinds.  The  proper  relation  of  the  Baptist  cliurches 
to  their  schools  is  a  question  of  very  j^reat  im- 
portance, and  it  has  several  branches,  whicli  may  be 
called  those  of  foundation,  maintenance,  and  con- 
trol. 

First  of  all,  there  is  the  question  of  foundation. 
There  are  three  ways  in  which  Baptist  schools  have 
commonly  been  founded,  but  often  these  three  have 
been  variously  combined  with  each  other:  (1)  There 
is  the  foundation  by  the  denominational  assemblies, 
or  bodies.  Sometimes  State  Conventions  and  As- 
sociations have  taken  up  the  question  of  education, 
and  by  concerted  action  and  appeal  to  the  people 
have  established,  endowed  and  maintained  the 
various  schools.  This,  as  in  the  case  of  missions  and 
charities,  is  the  princi])le  of  co-operation ;  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  clMn-ch  coming-  to<»ether  in  some 
stated  or  special  convention  have  seen  tit  to  es- 
tablish the  schools.  (2)  Local  enterprise.  It  has 
not  infrequently  hapi)ened  that  some  town  or  place 
would  take  the  initiative  in  establishing  a  school 
and  would  then  make  certain  pro])osals  to  the 
denomination  to  adopt  the  school  as  its  own,  to 
patronize  it,  and  to  assist  in  its  further  endowment 
and  enlargement.  This  method  has  sometimes  had 
its  difficulties,  leading  to  the  unnecessary  multipli- 
cation of  schools,  and  to  various  controversies  and 
competitions  in  their  establishment  and  mainten- 
ance. (3)  Individual  endowments.  It  has  also  been 
common  for  benevolent  individuals  to  give  large 
sums  for  the  establishment  of  denominational 
schools.     Sometimes  these  schools   have   been    ade- 


594  WORK   AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

quately  endowed  by  their  patrons,  but  quite  as  often 
their  funds  have  needed  supplementing  by  other 
gifts,  either  local  or  general. 

In  regard  to  the  founding  of  aditional  Baptist 
institutions  there  are  grave  questions  for  the  future 
to  determine.  How  many  more  there  should  be; 
whether  it  would  not  be  better  to  weed  out  some 
of  the  weaker  ones  and  concentrate  forces  upon  some 
of  the  stronger ;  whether  we  have  not  gone  too  fast  in 
establishing  denominational  schools;  are  all  ques- 
tions of  importance.  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  found 
and  maintain  a  well-equipped  school.  Hasty  enter- 
prises of  this  sort  may  well  be  regarded  with  sus- 
picion and  caution.  Probably,  as  in  the  past,  there 
will  be,  and  can  be,  no  settled  policy  as  to  the 
initiative,  but  wisdom  and  consideration  are  greatly 
needed  in  the  founding  of  schools. 

Next  to  be  considered  is  the  problem  of  main- 
tenance, and  this  involves  endowment,  enlargement, 
and  patronage.  No  school  can  now  maintain  itself 
and  successfully  compete  with  others  without  some 
endowment.  The  schools  which  derive  their  in- 
come in  part  from  invested  funds  have  a  great  ad- 
vantage over  those  which  have  to  depend  exclusively 
upon  patronage.  They  can  make  the  instruction 
cheaper,  and  if  not  cheaper,  they  can  give  a  higher 
grade  of  instruction  at  the  same  cost  to  the  student. 
While  free  tuition  is  perhaps  not  desirable,  while 
there  ought  to  be  some  income  from  patronage,  still 
the  need  of  liberal  endowments  is  most  keenly  felt, 
and  there  will  be  need  of  increasing  gifts  for  this 
great  purpose.  Popular  subscriptions  have  been  the 
principal  dependence  in  the  past,  and  these  will  still 


EDUCATION,  CIIAUrry,  REFORM.  595 

be  needed,  but  after  all  the  main  dependence  in 
the  future  must  be  upon  large  individual  gifts. 
Popular  subscriptions  are  too  uncertain,  too  ex- 
pensive and  difficult  to  raise  to  meet  with  undivided 
approval.  It  may  not  be  possible  to  get  entirely 
away  from  this  method ;  besides  it  gives  opportunity 
to  many  small  givers  to  become  interested  in  the 
endowment  of  the  college,  and  this  is  well ;  so  upon 
the  whole  we  must  look  to  both  popular  subscrip- 
tions and  large  personal  donations  for  the  endow- 
ment of  our  Baptist  schools. 

Another  matter  under  the  head  of  maintenance  is 
that  of  enlargement.  This  should  be  accepted  as  a 
constant  demand,  and  not  as  an  affliction.  The 
school  that  is  worth  establishing  and  endowing  is 
worth  enlargement.  In  the  nature  of  things  there 
cannot  be  any  fixed  limit  to  the  enlargement  of  a 
school.  It  is  exactly  parallel  to  the  enlargement  of 
a  business.  A  prosperous  business  man  always 
wants  to  enlarge  his  operations,  and  so  a  prosperous 
college  naturally  extends  its  departments,  widens 
its  course  of  instruction;  and  then  to  enlarge  its 
capacity  demands  an  increase  in  its  teaching  force. 
There  is  always  room  for  improvement  in  a  Baptist 
college.  The  churches  need  to  realize  this.  Many  of 
our  people  seem  to  think  that  after  they  have  once 
contributed  to  the  establishment  of  a  college  it  is 
positive  impudence  in  the  college  authorities  to  ask 
for  more;  but  the  necessity  of  enlarged  life  demands 
a  continual  appeal  to  the  benevolence  of  the  churches 
and  of  individuals. 

Still  another  matter  in  regard  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  colleges  is  that  of  patronage.    Very  delicate 


596  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

and  difficult  questions  arise  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject. The  general  proposition  may  be  laid  down, 
that  Baptist  people  ought  to  patronize  Baptist 
schools.  Other  things  being  equal  it  would  seem 
to  be  clearly  the  duty  of  Baptist  families  to  send 
their  children  to  those  schools  which  have  been  es- 
tablished and  maintained  by  their  own  denomina- 
tion. But  many  exceptional  cases  occur,  and  there 
cannot  be  any  unbending  law  to  compel  Baptists  to 
send  their  children  to  the  denominational  schools. 
Often  there  are  questions  of  locality  and  of  per- 
sonal preferences  which  constitute  just  and  reason- 
able grounds  for  a  different  choice. 

The  problem  of  control  is  also  one  of  serious  im- 
portance. It  is  a  live  question,  and  One  that  needs 
especial  and  delicate  attention.  First  of  all  let  us 
say  that  there  should  be  control.  What  is  the  use  of 
calling  a  school  Baptist  when  the  denomination  has 
no  control  of  it?  In  some  way  or  other  the  people 
who -have  established  the  school,  and  in  whose  name 
it  is  conducted,  should  be  able  to  make  their  views 
respected,  and  their  controlling  influence  felt  in  its 
management.  This  is  simple  justice  as  well  as  en- 
lightened policy;  but  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
nature  and  extent  of  that  control  and  influence,  we 
shall  have  to  admit  that  these  may  greatly  vary. 
Local  necessities  sometimes  require  that  others  who 
have  been  interested  in  the  founding  and  main- 
tenance of  the  college  should  have  a  voice  in  its 
management.  But  as  long  as  a  school  bears  the 
Baptist  name  and  appeals  to  the  denominational 
patronage,  it  has  no  right  to  surrender  utterly  to 
local   influence  the  control  of  the  college.     Again, 


EDrCATlOX.  CHARITY.  REFORM. 


597 


there  may  be  some  provisions  in  the  wills  and 
charters  by  which  institutions  have  been  established 
that  must  be  respected  so  as  to  limit  or  define  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  denominational  control.  It 
is  not  possible  here  to  give  this  matter  very  extended 
consideration.  Circumstances  will  largely  direct 
and  shape  the  policy  of  the  denomination  in  secur- 
ing and  holding  its  control  over  the  institutions 
which  bear  its  name. 

In  general,  the  most  feasible  and  satisfactory 
method  by  which  the  churches  should  control  their 
schools  is  that  the  co-operative  assemblies  of  the 
denomination  should  in  some  way  have  power  over 
the  boards  and  trustees.  In  many  schools  the  trus- 
tees are  elected  annually,  or  at  various  periods,  by 
the  State  conventions,  or  by  educational  conven- 
tions. Sometimes  the  trustees  are  composed  of  three 
or  four  classes,  a  certain  number  being  elected  each 
year  so  that  the  board  is  never  suddenly  changed. 
The  problem  is  to  find  the  medium  between  a  stable 
management  and  a  direct  touch  with  the  whole  de- 
nominational life.  If  popular  assemblies  have  too 
much  influence  there  is  dang-er  of  revolutions;  and 
sudden  changes  may  prove  disastrous  both  to  the 
patronage  and  to  the  resources  of  the  colleges.  If 
on  the  other  hand  the  influence  of  the  denomination 
is  too  remote,  and  the  corporation  perpetuates  and 
manages  itself,  there  is  danger  of  its  departing 
from  the  denominational  standards,  and  of  getting 
out  of  sym]»athy  with  the  denominational  life  and 
thought.  Boards  of  tnistees  for  denominational  in- 
stitutions should  not  be  wholly  self -perpetuating. 
In  cases  where  thev  fill  vacancies  by  their  own  elec- 


598  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

tlon,  these  elections  should  be  guarded  either  by 
charter  regulations,  or  else  the  denominational  as- 
semblies should  have  the  right  of  nomination,  leav- 
ing the  board  to  elect.  Of  course  it  need  not  be  said 
that  boards  of  trustees  for  denominational  institu- 
tions should  have  no  close  relations  with  the  state. 
This  has  sometimes  occurred  with  other  denomina- 
tions, and  has  been  the  cause  of  serious  friction  and 
trouble.  It  does  not  suit  the  genius  of  Baptist  in- 
stitutions to  have  entangling  alliances  with  the 
state.  From  education  we  pass  on  to  the  other  two 
phases  of  the  church's  work  for  social  welfare, 
namely,  charity  and  reform. 

Charity  may  be  defined  as  the  effort,  more  or  less 
systematic  and  organized,  to  give  relief,  either 
temporary  or  permanent,  to  the  individuals  and 
classes  of  society  which  are  in  special  need  of  help. 
There  is  a  very  large  number  of  dependent  and  de- 
fective members  of  society,  those  who  have  through 
fault  or  misfortune,  been  cast  for  their  support  upon 
the  help  of  others,  and  there  are  not  a  few  problems 
connected  with  the  giving  of  needed  relief.  It  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  the  churches  should  face 
these  problems,  and  should  be  found  in  the  front 
rank  in  lending  a  hand  toward  the  alleviation  of 
human  misery,  and  in  bringing  to  bear  upon  the  great 
suffering  mass  of  humanity  the  gentle  streams  of  a 
kindly  charity,  whose  great  source  is  in  the  senti- 
ments inspired  by  the  example  and  teachings  of  the 
Son  of  Man. 

It  is  proper  that  we  should  take  a  look  at  the 
historical  connection  between  Christianity  and 
charity.    It  is  one  of  the  chief  glories  of  Christianity 


EDTJCATIOX,  CHARITY,  RKFORM. 


699 


that  in  every  age  of  its  unfolding  power  among  men 
it  has  reached  out  a  helping  hand  to  the  help-need- 
ing class  of  mankind.* 

In  the  times  of  the  Apostles  we  find  that  they  had 
learned  the  lesson  from  their  Master,  and  gave  much 
attention,  both  in  example  and  precept,  to  the  relief 
of  the  poor,  the  sick,  the  destitute.  We  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  teachings  of  the  Apostles 
were  carried  on  in  the  obscure  period  up  to  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century ;  for  we  find  in  the  early 
Fathers  frequent  reference  to  the  giving  of  charity 
and  the  care  of  the  poor. 

One  of  the  earliest  forms  which  charity  took  was 
for  the  help  of  the  children ;  and  houses  for  the  care 
of  orphans  and  abandoned  children  were  not  un- 
common. Widows  also  received  especial  care;  and 
hospitals,  especially  for  incurables,  were  early 
founded  and  maintained. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  various  forms  of  charities 
which  the  church  had  begun  in  the  earlier  times 
were  carried  forward.  The  monasteries  were  often 
places  of  refuge  for  the  distressed.  It  is  true  that 
certain  fearful  abuses  were  sometimes  found  in  con- 
nection with  these  institutions,  but  making  no  ex- 
cuse whatever  for  any  wrongdoing,  it  remains  true 
that  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  Middle  Ages  did  a 
vast  amount  of  pure  and  beneficent  work. 

In  modern  times  Christianity  has  continued  in 
the  line  of  its  earlier  work  in  this  great  field.  The 
great  charities  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  have 

*  Books  that  bear  on  this  subject  are  W.  E.  H.  Lecky's 
History  of  European  3forals;  C.Schmidt's  Social  EesiiUs  of 
Early  Christianity;  C.  L.  Brace's  Gesta  Christi,  and  others. 


600  WORK   AND  WORSHIP  OF  CIITTIICH, 

been  continued,  and  have  extended  tlironghout  the 
worhl.  Of  course,  Protestantism  could  not  leave 
this  work  alone  to  Rome.  State-church  institutions 
on  the  continent  of  Euroj)e  and  in  England  may 
liave  had  some  influence  in  turning  over  to  the  state 
a  larger  share  of  charitable  work.  The  famous 
Orphan  House  in  Halle  was  founded  by  the  cele- 
brated preacher  and  philanthropist,  A.  H.  Francke, 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century.  This 
institution  has  been  the  model  for  many  similar  ones 
in  Ihe  Protestant  denominations.  The  piteous  ap- 
peal of  neglected  and  orphan  children  has  been 
heard,  and  almost  every  denomination  has  its  orY)han 
house  in  most  of  the  countries,  and  in  the  States  of 
our  Union.  Along  Avith  aid  for  the  children  tliere 
has  been  help  for  the  forlorn  of  other  classer<.  There 
are  homes  and  funds  for  tlie  aged  ])oor  of  both  sexes, 
and  for  aged  and  indig^ent  ministers.  There  are  also 
a  few  hospitals  and  sanitariums  under  denomina- 
tional management. 

In  the  days  of  the  early  Christian  emjterors  there 
was  co-operation  between  church  and  state  in  the 
founding  and  maintenance  of  charitable  institutions. 
In  the  Middle  Ages  the  Church  had  j)i'rha])S  taken 
the  most  of  them  under  her  care.  Since  tlie  Ke- 
formation  the  various  states  of  the  civilized  world, 
acting  now  under  direct  and  now  under  indirect 
stimulus  from  the  church,  and  hap])ily  imbued  with 
Christian  sentiments,  have  done  extensive  works  of 
charity.  Where  there  is  separation  of  church  and 
state,  as  in  the  case  of  education,  th<'re  are  both 
denominational  and  i)ublic  institutions.  The  (pies- 
tion  immediately  arises,  as  with  the  schools,  whether 


KltrcA'I'ION'.  CIIAIM'I'Y.  KIOI'OIOI.  601 

thero  is  iicimI  for  liolli.  Sonic  su^-^csl  lli;it  llic  in- 
stitutions of  clijiiily  should  iill  Ix'  tui-ucd  over  <o 
11h'  stiller  P.ul  l)(>si(l(>s  I'Ciisons  of  dcnoniiuiit ional 
])oli('y,  tlici'c  is  si  ill  ;uhi:il  room  and  ^rtsil  need  for 
all  llial  now  exist  an«l  more  Ix'sidcs.  Nor  is  it  wise 
or  Christian  to  turn  over  all  i»hilanlhro|>i('  woi'k  to 
Hie  secular  anlhorities;  for  in  addition  to  thi'  elmck 
on  inisniaua^<Mnenl  whicli  lliese  church-  charities 
olTer,  the  diurclies  theuiselves  need  the  o|>])orl unity 
and  the  stimulus  for  Cliiislian  i;i\iiii;'  which  these 
institutions  brinj;'.  Ther<'  niiiilil  lie  some  sort  of 
state  supervision  wliich  would  not  inlei'fere  with 
individual  or  rt'li^ious  liberty,  and  in  some  places 
the  presence  of  some  notable  ])ublic  cliaiily  may  well 
i-ender  unnecessary  the  establisliment  of  any  similar 
denominational  institutions;  but  on  tlu'  whole  there 
seems  thus  far  to  be  ami>le  just  ilical  ion  for  the 
chui'ches  to  j^o  on  with  their  cliarilable  work,  and 
vvvu  <'Xleii(l  it. 

Regard  in  <;■  the  local  ch.nrch  as  an  instrunient  of 
])ower  in  the  promotion  of  all  (Mirislian  enterprises, 
it  is  lilt  inn'  that  we  should  <iive  some  account  of  its 
relaruMis  It)  llie  ^.rcal  malfer  of  Clirislian  charilies. 
The  duty  and  the  actual  work  of  these  churches  in 
t'harity  rests  ]»i'imarily,  as  in  evan<>lizaliou,  upon  the 
individual  Clirislian.  No  combiiuitious  of  in- 
dividuals into  societies  or  churches,  nor  of  these 
into  lai'£;er  assoeiations  can  release  each  sejtarate 
Christian  fi-om  his  duly  to  extend  helj)  to  his  fellow- 
nien  who  need  assistance.  T.ul  we  are  here  espiM-ially 
concerned  with  the  matter  of  chai-ity  from  the 
church  i»oint  of  view,  and  much  that  is  to  be  said 
will  a]>ply  eipially  well  to  Hie  duly  of  llie  individual 


602  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

Christian  ;  for  in  addition  to  personal  and  individual 
help,  the  church  as  an  organization  also  has  its  work 
in  this  field,  gathering  up  and  directing  each  sep- 
arate activity  and  gift  on  the  part  of  its  members. 

The  larger  co-operation  with  other  churches  in 
general  work  does  not  relieve  the  local  church  from 
the  duty  of  caring  both  for  its  own  poor  and  for 
those  who  have  no  immediate  claim  upon  its  bene- 
ficence. The  question  of  how  to  perform  the  duty 
is  one  of  paramount  interest  and  importance.  There 
are  several  principles  to  guide  us.  In  the  first  place,, 
there  must  be  the  giving  of  money,  or  of  the  neces-^ 
sities  of  life;  actual  gifts  of  things  that  are  needed, 
food,  raiment,  shelter,  medicine, — all  of  which  cost 
money.  Whether  the  money  itself  should  be  given,, 
or  the  things  needed  bought  for  the  recipient,  would 
depen'd,  of  course,  upon  the  circumstances ;  but  there 
must  be  the  giving  of  those  things  which  are  needful 
for  the  body.  "If  a  brother  or  a  sister  be  naked,  and 
in  lack  of  daily  food,  and  one  of  you  say  unto  them, 
Go  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed  and  filled,  and  yet  ye 
give  them  not  the  things  needful  to  the  body,  what 
doth  it  profit?"     (James  2:15,16). 

But  along  with  this  giving  of  necessities  there- 
must  be  wisdom  in  the  giving,  and  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  gifts.  In  the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts,. 
we  find  that  the  administration  of  charity  occupied 
the  attention  of  the  Apostles  when  in  the  daily  min- 
istration of  the  common  fund  ot  the  church  at 
Jerusalem  some  widows  were  neglected.  The 
Apostles  desired  the  community  to  set  apart  seven 
men  of  good  report  who  should  be  over  that  business. 
(Acts  6:1-6.)     Thus  suitable  care  was  taken  in  the 


EDUCATION_,  CHARITY,  REFORM.  603 

very  earliest  nio\'ement  of  the  church's  charities  that 
they  should  be  wisely  and  impartially  distributed. 
In  2  Cor.  8:10-23,  Paul  gives  us  valuable  hints  as 
to  the  care  which  should  be  taken  in  administering 
the  fund  for  the  necessity  of  the  saints.  He  shows 
how  Titus  and  other  brethren  were  chosen  by  the 
churches  to  assist  in  the  distribution  of  this  bounty, 
and  that  he  did  this  to  avoid  any  criticism,  ''provid- 
ing honest  things,  not  only  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord, 
but  also  in  the  sight  of  men."  Another  phase  of 
this  subject,  too,  is  presented  by  the  Apostle  in  I 
Tim.  5:3-16,  where  he  lays  down  some  very  sensible 
regulations  as  to  the  character  of  the  persons  who 
should  receive  the  bounty  of  the  church.  The  aged, 
the  destitute  and  the  worthy  widows  were  to  be  ac- 
cepted without  hesitation,  and  eared  for,  but  in  cases 
of  families  who  had  widows  among  them,  they  were 
to  i)r()vide  for  their  own,  the  Apostle  distinctly  de- 
claring that  the  man  who  provides  not  for  his  own 
household  has  denied  the  faith  and  is  worse  than 
an  unbeliever.  The  church  was  not  to  be  burdened 
with  those  who  wei^  not  actually  in  need  of  its  help, 
or  who  were  unworthy  to  receive  it.  Again,  Paul 
seems  to  have  anticipated  the  modern  tram])  evil  in 
2  Thess.  3 :10,  where  he  declares  that  those  who  were 
unwilling  to  work,  should  not  eat.  We  thus  see  that 
the  duty  of  the  churches  to  exercise  wise  care  in  the 
administration  of  their  charities  is  very  plain. 

The  deacons  are  usually  charged  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  charities,  and  very  rightly;  for  that 
seems  to  have  been  the  i)rimary  intention  of  their 
office,  but  tile  j.astor  also  will  naturally  be  con- 
cerned in  this  matter;  and,  moreover,  it  should  not 


■604  WORK    AM)   WOUSIIIP  OF  CHURCH. 

be  confined  to  the  pastor  and  deacons,  but  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  and  the  church  in  its  official 
capacity,  ought  to  exercise  some  care.  Great  deli- 
cacy is  needed  in  the  administration  of  charities. 
Sometimes  persons  who  actually  need  help  are  too 
proud  to  ask  for  it,  while  others  who  do  not  need 
it,  are  only  too  forward  in  seeking  it.  To  reject  the 
unworthy  and  to  find  out  the  really  worthy  is  one 
of  the  church's  delicate  and  peculiar  duties.  It  is 
not  right  that  everybody  who  asks  for  help  should 
receive  it.  Churches,  as  well  as  individual  Chris- 
tians, often  do  harm  by  giving  to  impostors  who 
ought  to  be  at  work  instead  of  being  allowed  to  beg. 
Often  it  is  mere  sentimentality  and  unwillingness 
to  look  into  things,  which  allows  Christian  people 
and  churches  to  be  careless  in  the  distribution  of 
alms.  In  modern  times  the  Associated  Charities 
Societies  have  been  found  very  helpful  both  to 
churches  and  to  individuals  in  relieving  them  from 
the  incessant  appeals  of  impostors  and  unworthy, 
beggars.  It  is  well  for  the  pastors  and  some  of  the 
leading  members  of  the  churches  in  cities  to  be 
conected  with  these  associations,  and  when  appli- 
cants who  are  unknown  present  themselves  as  ob- 
jects of  aid,  they  should  be  promptly  referred  to  the 
Associated  Charities  Society.  Usually,  however,  the 
<;hurch  will  find  among  its  own  and  well  known 
members  those  who  need  occasional,  and  some  who 
need  permanent,  help.  In  the  case  of  the  aged  and 
the  sick,  there  can  be  little  question  as  to  the 
church's  duty;  but  sometimes  it  is  necessary  to 
withdraw  help  when  it  is  found  that  the  persons  re- 
ceiving it  are  becoming  pauperized,  that  is,  depend- 


EDUCATION,  CHARITY,  REFOIIM.  605 

ing  upon  the  church  rather  than  upon  their  own 
exertions. 

In  addition  to  giving-  and  administering  the  things 
that  are  necessary  for  the  body,  there  must  be  per- 
sonal contact.  In  the  wonderful  description  of  the 
Final  Judgment  given  by  our  Lord  in  Matt. 
25:34-40,  there  is  a  vision  of  those  who  come  and 
are  rewarded  because  tliey  have  ministered  to  the 
Lord  when  he  was  sick  and  in  prison  and  distressed; 
and  when  the^^  express  their  surprise,  he  says  to 
them ;  "Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of 
the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  liave  done  it  unto 
me."  No  one  who  has  ever  r6ad  or  heard  it  can  ever 
forget  the  beautiful  saying  of  the  apostle  James 
(1:27)  :  "Pure  religion  and  undeliled  before  God 
and  the  Father  is  this:  To  visit  the  fatherless  and 
widoAvs  in  their  atHiction,  and  to  keep  himself  un- 
spotted from  the  world."  Notwithstanding  this 
classic  passage,  so  often  quoted,  it  yet  remains  de- 
plorably true  that  this  branch  of  Christian  charity 
is  greatly  neglected  by  our  churches.  Too  often 
the  duty  of  personal  visitation  is  relegated  entirely 
to  the  pastors  and  the  deacons,  together  with  the 
women's  societies  or  committees  of  the  church.  Yet 
the  pastor  will  have  the  larger  share  of  this  kind  of 
work,  and  he  should  unhestitatingly  and  lovingly 
perform  his  duty  in  this  regard. 

In  regard  to  the  relations  which  the  churches  sus- 
tain to  Ihe  denominational  charities  a  few  words 
must  be  said.  As  in  the  case  of  missions  and  edu- 
cation there  must  be  co-operation  among  the 
churches  to  sustain  their  benevolent  institutions. 
The  work   is   carried   on   in   the   familiar   wavs   of 


606  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH, 

taking  collections  in  the  local  cliurclies,  having  the 
work  of  charity  discussed  in  the  conventions  and  as- 
sociations, and  having  the  institutions  managed  by 
boards,  committees,  managers  and  the  like.  As  in 
the  case  of  schools,  there  is  need  that  these  institu- 
tions of  charity  be  kept  in  close  connection  with  the 
churches,  and  that  the  churches  should  exercise 
suitable  control  in  their  management. 

In  addition  to  this  support  it  is  possible  for  some 
of  the  churches  to  have  more  immediate  contact  with 
special  charities.  This  may  sometimes  occur  in  the 
way  of  sending  their  own  needy  to  these  institutions. 
Some  churches  may  have  orphans  or  the  aged  of 
their  own  membership  who  receive  benefit  from  these 
institutions,  and  they  have  thereby  personal  interest 
in  their  management  and  success.  Sometimes  also 
some  member  of  the  local  church  may  be  connected 
with  the  board  of  management.  And  yet  again,  the 
churches  which  are  located  near  any  institution  of 
charity  have  a  peculiar  privilege  in  connection  with 
it.  Their  members  may  by  visits  and  personal  in- 
spection become  familiarized  with  the  workings  of 
the  charity,  or  may  be  enabled  to  perform  kind  of- 
fices for  the  inmates,  and  in  various  other  ways  may 
have  such  local  touch  and  sympathy  as  to  conduce 
greatly  to  their  own  spiritual  growth  and  to  the 
good  of  the  institution. 

In  addition  to  the  denominational  charities  which 
have  been  mentioned,  the  churches  may  sometimes 
come  in  contact  with  public  charities,  and  church- 
members  as  citizens  will  be  interested  in  institu- 
tions of  general  public  interest.  It  is  right,  there- 
fore, to  give  some  consideration  to  these. 


EDUCATION,  CHARITY.  REFORM.  607 

The  term  "public  charities"  is  usually  restricted 
to  those  which  are  supj)orted  by  taxation;  but  in 
the  larger  use  of  the  phrase  it  would  moan  those 
charities  in  which  the  public  generally  is  interested, 
instead  of  any  special  denomination  or  church,  and 
in  this  larger  sense  it  is  here  employed.  We  might 
classify  such  public  charities  under  four  leading 
varieties,  viz.,  tax-supi»(»i  (ed  institutions,  endowed  in- 
stitutions, asssociated  charities  societies,  and  occa- 
sional appeals.  Taking  up  these  in  their  order,  we 
notice  first  tax-supported  institutions.  There  are 
many  kinds  of  these, — asylums  for  the  blind,  the 
deaf,  the  insane  and  feeble-minded,  hospitals,  houses 
of  reform,  various  plans  for  outdoor  relief,  that  is, 
for  bringing  help  to  the  homes  of  the  needy  instead 
of  congregating  these  into  houses.  Some  of  these 
are  upon  a  large  scale  and  supported  by  the  various 
States.  And  in  addition  there  are  county  and  muni- 
cipal institutions,  alms-houses,  hospitals  and  local 
orphanages  which  are  supported  by  taxation.  Next, 
there  are  the  endowed  institutions  which  are  semi- 
public.  They  are  open  to  the  public,  and  if  well 
managed  the  whole  people  have  a  pride  in  them; 
yet  they  do  not  appeal  either  to  taxation  or  to  sub- 
scription for  their  support,  but  derive  this  from  in- 
vested funds  supplied  by  their  founders.  There  are 
many  of  these  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  and 
of  all  sorts.  Some  are  denominational,  but  many 
are  not.  Usually  all  are  open  for  any  needy  without 
question  as  to  sectarian  affliation.  Some  mention 
ought  to  be  made  of  the  Associated  Charities.  These 
differ  somewhat  in  the  different  States  as  to  the 
details  of  organization,  but  the  general  purpose  of 


608  WORK  AND  AYORSIIIP  OF  CHURCH. 

these  societies  is  not  directly  to  dispense  alms,  but 
rather  to  investigate  cases  of  need  and  put  these  in 
connection  witli  individual  or  church  charities. 
Sometimes  these  societies  dispense  fuel  and  other 
things.  They  have  had  a  very  happy  effect  in  many 
of  our  cities  as  regards  both  local  impostors  and  the 
general  army  of  tramps  that  infest  the  land.  And 
thus,  as  we  have  seen,  they  may  be  valuable  auxil- 
iaries to  the  churches. 

Besides  these  forms  of  charity,  mention  ought  to 
be  made  of  those  appeals  occasionally  made,  which 
come  not  to  any  one  class,  or  church,  or  individual, 
but  to  the  public  at  large.  These  are  usually  extra- 
ordinary needs,  calamities;  cases  like  the  Charles- 
ton earthquake  of  ISSG,  the  Johnstown  flood  of  1889, 
and  more  recently  the  Galveston  storm,  and  other 
similar  disasters.  Sometimes  contributions  are 
called  for  by  public  meetings,  speeches  and  appeals 
of  various  sorts,  and  the  whole  public  is  interested 
in  these  occasional  demands  for  charity. 

When  we  raise  the  question  as  to  what  is  the 
proper  relation  of  the  churches  to  these  public 
charities,  the  answer  will  vary  according  to  the 
circumstances.  Of  course  there  is  no  organic  con- 
nection. The  churches  have  no  control  over  public 
charities  and  no  direct  relation  to  them,  as  churches; 
but  there  is  a  sympathetic  relation,  which  as  Chris- 
tian bodies  they  ought  to  feel  in  all  institutions  for 
the  good  of  humanity.  There  ought  also  to  be  com- 
prehension of  these  great  works  on  the  part  of  pas- 
tors, and  of  the  more  intelligent  members.  Besides 
all  this,  it  is  obvious  that  sometimes  there  may  be  a 
degree    of    active    co-operation    which    will    be    de- 


EDUCATION_,  CHARITY.  UKKORM.  60^ 

tprmined  In'  the  nature  of  the  charity  itself  and  by 
the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Sometimes,  for  ex- 
ample, there  will  be  call  for  personal  interest  and 
work  on  the  part  of  the  i)astor  and  members.  No 
one  knows  how  much  good  may  be  done  by  an  oc- 
casional visit  from  some  Christian  person  to  these 
institutions.  Oftentimes  what  the  inmates  need 
more  than  material  hel})  is  a  sympathetic  touch,  a 
reminder  of  the  i)romises  of  God,  or  a  word  or  two 
of  fervent  and  helpful  prayer.  Sometimes  when 
public  meetin<;s,  in  the  interest  of  these  charities, 
are  needed  they  will  naturally  be  held  in  churches, 
and  s])!M'<li('s  and  addresses  be  made  and  collections 
taken  if  called  for;  so  that  the  churches  have  op- 
portunity of  contributino-  in  this  way  to  the  pros- 
perity of  these  institutions. 

But  it  is  not  in  education  and  charity  alone  that 
the  humanitarian  work,  of  the  church  finds  expres- 
sion; for  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  of  our 
times  is  the  relation  which  Christians  and  churches 
should  have  toward  the  numerous  and  various  move- 
ments wliich  fall  under  the  <;'eneral  name  of  social  re- 
forms. That  there  is  a  widespread  and  deep-seated 
interest  in  the  problems  of  human  society,  not  even 
tile  most  superficial  observer  of  our  times  can  fail 
to  see.  On  the. theoretical  side  the  movement  finds 
expression  in  the  science  of  Sociolojjy.  on  the  j»rac- 
tical  side  in  Reforms.  From  both  j)oints  of  view  it 
makes  imperative  appeal  to  bofh  thoughtful  pastors 
and  intelligent  laymen. 

No  gi'eat  movement  for  human  good  ever  existed 
without  its  perils;  so  there  are  dangers  which  the 
thoughtful  must  face  in  studying  the  current  move- 


610  WOliK  AXD  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

ment  for  reform.  One  of  these  perils  is  that  of  ex- 
treme views.  Another'is  that  of  complexity.  There 
is  a  bewildering  confusion  of  appeals  and  plans;  and 
much  careful  thought  is  wanted. 

Yet  notwithstanding  these  difficulties,  there  is  a 
blessed  promise  in  this  movement  for  social  reform. 
Let  us  not  expect  too  much,  let  us  not  hope  for 
speedy  results,  let  us  be  willing  to  labor  and  to  wait. 
But  there  is  good  hope  for  humanity  in  this  great 
quickening  of  human  interest  in  the  problems  of 
mankind,  and  Christian  people  have  here  a  duty 
which  they  cannot  evade  and  ought  lovingly  and 
conscientiously  to  face,  in  studying  this  great  move- 
ment and  doing  what  they  may  to  promote  it  wisely, 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  religion. 

The  name  of  reform  is  legion ;  yet,  there  are  some 
leading  varieties  which  by  way  of  illustration  may 
here  be  noted.  There  is  the  great  temperance  re- 
'form;  the  promotion  of  sobriety,  the  breaking  up  of 
the  drink  habit,  the  destruction  of  the  traffic  in  in- 
toxicating liquors.  Then  there  is  a  great  movement 
for  social  purity,  the  checking  of  vice,  and  the  en- 
couragement of  a  better  sentiment  in  regard  to 
chastity.  Then  there  is  the  problem  of  the  better  dis- 
tribution of  wealth,  an  effort  to  remove  in  some  way 
the  grinding  inequalities,  the  awful  contrast  be- 
tween the  too  rich  and  the  too  poor.  Another  great 
movement  is  that  for  the  improvement  of  the  lower 
classes  of  mankind,  the  uplifting  of  the  "submerged 
tenth,"  the  cleaning  out  of  the  slums.  Another  vista 
opens  before  us  in  the  way  of  sanitation  and  hygiene, 
the  protection  of  the  health  of  the  community,  the 
removal  of  disease  and  the    encouragement    of    a 


EDUCATION,  CIIAUTTY.  niCFOUM. 


611 


hcallliicr  condilion  of  tlic  l)0(lips  of  iiuMi.  Xor  must 
we  fail  to  take  account  of  political  reforms.  Clean- 
iug  out  the  ''Angeaii  stables"  of  politics,  more 
especially  iiuuiicipal  ])oli(ics,  is  one  of  the  problems 
of  the  age.  The  misgoveriimeut  of  American  cities 
is  a  by-word  and  a  reproach  to  our  people. 

An  interesting  subject  of  discussion,  if  there  were 
time  to  pursue  it  at  length,  would  be  the  promoters 
of  reforms.  They  are  a  queerly  assorted  company, — 
atheists  and  theologians,  philosophers  and  preachers, 
bookish  students  and  clownish  laborers,  wild 
visionaries  and  sober  thinkers,  scheming  politicians 
and  eminent  statesmen,  learned  professors  and 
ignorant  workmen,  business  men  and  tramps,  mil- 
lionaires and  beggars — and  women  of  every  sort! 
The  numerous  reformers  that  assail  both  the  diflS- 
culties  of  our  times,  and  the  ears  of  listeners  willing 
and  unwilling,  are  themselves  marvels  of  the  age. 

Our  more  special  subject  of  consideration  here, 
howe\'er,  is  the  relation  of  the  churches  to  social  re- 
form. How  are  the  churches  concerned  with  these 
various  efforts  to  improve  the  social  conditions  of 
our  time?  This  is  a  perfectly  natural  and  proper 
(|u<»stion,  and  our  answer  would  be  in  apostolic  lan- 
guage, '']\ruch  every  way,  chiefly  because  to  them 
are  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  The  Lord  haa 
concern  for  human  good,  and  the  churches  represent 
him  on  the  earth;  but  they  need  to  take  the  greatest 
care  and  to  exercise  the  greatest  wisdom  in  order 
that  they  may  not  misrepresent  him  ;  for  of  this  there 
is  undeniably  great  danger.  Our  churches  would 
make  a  mistake  to  go  either  to  the  extreme  of  neglect, 
or  to  that  of  losing  their  own  identity,  and  the  sight 


612  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

of  their  own  special    mission,    by    becoming    over- 
whelmed in  matters  merely  social. 

On  the  negative  side  we  may  say  that  the  rela- 
tion of  the  churches  to  reforms  is  not  an  organic  one. 
These  reforms  do  not  correspond  at  every  point  with 
the  proper  mission  of  the  churches,  nor  is  it  proper 
always  for  the  churches  to  touch  them  at  every  point. 
It  is  the  duty  of  the  churches  to  recognize  the  points 
of  contact  and  divergence  between  their  work  and 
that  of  the  current  reforms.  Again,  the  relation  is 
not  a  mutually  regulative  one.  It  is  best  for  the 
churches  to  abstain  from  any  attenrpt  to  control 
these  movements.  It  is  right,  of  course,  that  they 
should  influence  them,  but  the  influence  ought  to  be 
indirect.  So  is  it  absolutely  essential  to  the  life  and 
well-being  of  the  churches  that  they  do  not  permit 
themselves  to  be  taken  in  charge  by  any  of  these  cur- 
rent refornis.  It  would  be  a  mournful  day  for  any 
church  when  it  should  submit  itself  to  be  regulated 
and  controlled  by  those  movements  which  have  only 
social  reform  for  their  purpose  and  object.  But  the 
pastors  and  members  of  churches  in  their  work  as 
Christians  and  citizens  may  be  intimately  associated 
and  concerned  with  any  proper  reform.  For  ex- 
ample, it  would  hardly  be  proper  for  a  church  to  be- 
come a  temperance  society.  The  members  and  pas- 
tor of  a  church  might  easily  be  connected  with 
temperance  societies,  and  temperance  societies  might 
have  an  organization  within  the  church,  though  thei*e 
are  obvious  objections  to  this  plan;  but  a  direct 
contact  of  the  church  in  its  corporate  life  with  any 
temperance  reform  would  not  commonly  be  ad- 
visable. The  church  has  other  thins:s  to  do  than  to 


EOrCATIOX.  CTIArUTY,  UKFORM. 


613 


be  a  temperance  society,  oi-  by  losin^i-  si<»ht  of  its 
true  mission  to  promote  any  other  reform,  however 
good  in  itself. 

On  the  positive  side  there  are  many  ways  in  which 
the  churches  may  be  related  to  these  various  causes 
of  reform.  The  ]>ra(tical  duty  of  a  church  in  such 
cases  will  necessarily  be  largely  determined  by  its 
<>p]»orfuuities  and  capacities.  Some  churches  for 
varittus  reasons  have  a  greater  call  than  others  for 
work  in  reformatory  measures;  yet,  in  some  degree, 
all  the  churches  are  concerned,  and  their  general 
duly  toward  these  movements  may  be  indicated  in 
the  three  words — comprehension,  sympathy  and  ef- 
fort. It  is  the  duty  of  (Miristian  peoi)le  to  take  an 
intelligent  interest  in  reformatory  movements. 
Christians  cannot  afford  to  be  ignorant  of  any  good 
that  is  going  on  in  their  neighborhood.  It  is  not  to 
be  ex])ected  that  all  the  members  of  any  church 
would  be  equally  interested  in  such  movements,  and 
naturally  the  pastors  themselves  will  differ  in  the 
amount  of  knowledge  and  interest  which  they  have 
as  to  these  matters;  but  upon  the  whole  it  can  be 
safely  said  that  the  churches,  through  some  of  their 
re])resentatives,  should  have  adeipiate  knowledge  of 
tlie  great  movements  for  human  good  which  are  pro- 
ceeding in  the  world.  It  might  sometimes  be  well 
for  certain  members  of  a  church  interested  in  social 
science,  or  in  jtractical  social  efforts  to  meet  together, 
read,  and  have  discussions  regarding  some  of  these 
reforms.  Occasionally  it  would  be  well  for  the  pas- 
tor to  preach  sermons  that  bear  ujxm  them.  If  the 
churches  are  to  be  connected  in  any  wise  with 
these  modern  movements  of  reform,  it  ought  to  he 


614:  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

on  the  basis  of  a  clear  intelligence  and  of  as  wide 
knowledge  as  possible. 

There  ought  also  to  be  a  deep  and  real  sympathy 
on  the  part  of  the  churches  toAvard  all  good  reforms. 
Of  course  this  will  be  limited  by  the  extent  to  which 
any  given  reform  is  in  accordance  with  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  and  sometimes  also  by  the  character  and 
the  methods  of  the  reformers.  If  a  given  reform  is 
in  accordance  with  gospel  teaching  and  precedent, 
and  is  promoted  in  ways  that  commend  themselves 
to  the  conscience  and  intelligence  of  Christian  peo- 
ple, a  most  earnest  and  thorough-going  sympathy 
should  be  felt. 

How  far  the  churches  should  take  active  part  in 
the  promotion  of  reforms  will  depend  upon  a  good 
many  things,  and  their  course  should  be  guided  by 
the  principles  just  laid  down.  With  a  thorough 
understanding  and  ready  sympathy  on  the  part  of 
the  churches  of  Christ  all  active  effort  should  be 
wisely  guided.  If  the  reform  is  good,  and  the  church 
has  opportunity  to  help  it  on,  this  help  should  be 
given  in  accordance  with  the  church's  own  methods 
and  ideals.  Let  it  not  cease  to  be  a  church,  or  to 
pursue  church  methods  in  its  help  toward  reforms. 
There  are  many  ways  in  which  a  church  can  help  on 
reforms.  One  of  the  most  common  is  that  of  sup- 
plying from  its  membership  those  who  will  take  in- 
telligent interest  along  with  others  in  giving  en- 
couragement and  success  to  these  enterprises.  An- 
other way  is  in  offering  its  building  sometimes  for 
the  use  of  societies  for  reform.  There  is  no  reason 
why  the  anniversary  of  a  temperance  society,  or  of 
an  associated  charities  organization,  should  not  be 


EDUCATION,  CMIAUITY.  REFORM. 


615 


hospitably  entertaiued  by  a  clnii-eh.  Sometimes,  too, 
oeeasiou  might  arise  for  tinancial  help  iu  the  way  of 
taking  up  collections  for  the  benefit  of  certain  so- 
cieties of  reform. 

Let  it  be  emphasized  in  conclusion,  that  the  very 
best  way  in  which  a  church  can  do  good  in  human 
society  is  to  carry  on  its  work  with  a  high  and  holy 
consecration  to  its  divine  mission.  If  a  church 
would  be  what  it  ought  to  be  in  its  worship,  its  doc- 
trines, its  influence  upon  the  community,  in  the 
character  of  its  leaders  and  members,  it  Avill  do  more 
for  human  good  than  it  will  by  abandoning  the  old- 
time  lines  ui)()n  wliidi  ils  activities  have  been  laid 
out  and  turning  aside  into  some  new  by-]»ath  of 
sensationalism  and  noise.  The  best  reform  which 
any  church  can  seek  or  hope  to  effect  is  to  bring  in- 
dividual souls  into  living  contact  with  Jesus  Christ. 


616  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 


OUTLINE  OF  (^HAPTER  V. 

SCRIPTURE  TEACHING  AS  TO  WORSHIP, 

I.  Old  Testament  Worship. 

1.  Survey  of  its  history. 

(1)  Earliest  times. 

(2)  Mosaic  institutions. 

(3)  The  obscure  period. 

(4)  Flourishing  period. 

(5)  The  divided  nation. 
(6)   The  captivity. 

(7)   Post-exilian  times. 

2.  Inferences. 

(1)  Underlying  principles. 

(2)  Component  parts. 

(3)  Character  of  the  worshiper, 

II.  New  Testament  Worship. 

1.  Its  character. 

(1 )  Related  to  Old  Testament  and  synagogue. 

(2)  Exemplified  in  Christ, 

(3)  Taught  by  Apostles, 

2.  Its  law. 

(1)  Fundamentals  permanent. 

(2)  Spirit  obligatory. 

(3)  Elements  remain. 

(4)  Forms  may  vary. 


CHArTER  V. 

WORSIIir  OF  THE   CIirUCHES. 
SCRII'Tl'RE  TEAnilXG. 

OxE  purpose  of  ohurclips  jind  of  cUm-cli  life  is  to 
provide  for  and  maintain  tlie  worship  of  God. 
Hence,  in  our  study  of  Ecclesiology,  or  tlie  doctrine 
of  the  church,  it  is  important,  not  to  say  indis])ensa- 
ble,  that  we  take  some  account  of  worship.  The 
subject  is  not  commonly  treated  in  books  about  the 
church,  but  in  se])arate  treatises,  or  in  connection 
with  other  subjects,  as  preaching  or  pastoral  duties. 
But  the  matter  has  an  important  relation  to  the 
church  as  such,  as  well  as  to  preaching  and  the 
preacher,  and  therefore,  from  tlie  church  ])oint  of 
view,  it  seems  desirable  to  consider  the  great  duty 
and  i»rivilege  of  worship. 

The  primary  notion  of  worshi]),  involved  in  the 
word,  is  that  of  giving  honor  (  worthship)  to  any  per- 
son deserving  it,  or  worthy  of  it,  and  so  pre- 
eminently to  God  as  entitled  to  all  the  "worship" 
which  a  creature  can  pay.  In  Latin  it  is  called 
cultus,  whence  our  borrowed  word  "cult."  This 
comes  from  the  verb  colere,  to  care  for,  to  respect; 
and  hence,  intensively,  to  regard  as  an  object  of 
veneration.  In  Greek  several  words  are  used  to  ex- 
press the  thought,  of  which  one  is  'w.zoupyia 
(Utiirpia),  from  which  comes  our  word  'liturgy." 
In  the  Greek  word    the    thought    of    service     ^f>y<> 

617 


618  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

ergon)  comes  in.  This  was  true  also  in  the  case  of 
the  Hebrew  al)hodJioh,  from  a  verb  meaning  to  serve. 
To  this  conception  corresponds  the  German  Gottes- 
dienst,  service  of  God.  These  etymologies  convey 
the  true  idea  of  worship  a.s  being  reverential  service 
toward  God  expressed  in  acts  of  devotion  usually  in 
an  assembly,  and  in  a  place  set  apart  for  the  purpose. 

We  need  not  here  take  account  of  the  most  gen- 
eral notion  of  worship  which  seems  to  exist  among 
all  men;  nor  discuss  at  all  the  various  forms  of  wor-. 
ship  among  the  heathen  nations,  ancient  i)r  modern. 
Our  view  is  confined  to  the  Avorship  of  Christian 
churches,  especially  Baptist  churches;  and  so  we 
must  look  for  our  teaching  on  this  subject  first  of 
all  to  the  Word  of  God.  The  main  question  for  us 
is,  What  does  the  Bible  teach  us  concerning  wor- 
ship? In  seeking  an  answer  to  this  question  we  are 
at  once  impressed  with  the  fact  that,  along  with 
great  likeness,  there  is  remarkable  dift'erence  be- 
tween the  teachings  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
on  this  subject,  and  so  Ave  must  study  them 
separately. 

Students  of  Scripture  are  well  aware  that  in  the 
difl'erent  periods  of  Old  Testament  history  different 
modes  of  worship  prevailed,  and  it  will  therefore  be 
necessary  to  pay  some  attention  to  these.  Let  us 
first  make  a  survey  of  the  periods  of  worship  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  then  draw  such  inferences  from 
the  descriptions  and  injunctions  as  may  be  helpful 
to  us.  In  making  this  brief  preliminary  surA^ey  we 
are  struck  with  the  appearance  of  worship  in  the 
earliest  history  of  the  race.  Let  us  recall  the  sad 
story  of  Cain  and  Abel,  of  one  who  offered  fruits 


SCRI PTU RE   TE AC II I N (i. 


619 


of  the  ji-nmiul  with  pride  and  self-righteonsness,  and 
the  other  who  offered  the  more  acceptable  sacrifice 
of  a  slain  lamb,  whose  shed  blood  probably  be- 
tokened the  need  of  giving-  life  as  atonement  for  sin. 
Let  us  observe  the  statement  in  Gensis  4  :2G,  where 
after  the  notice  of  the  birth  of  Enoch,  it  is  said: 
"Then  began  men  to  call  npon  the  name  of  Jehovah." 
Whatever  difficulties,  historical  and  exegetical,  the 
language  in  this  passage  may  have,  it  indicates  with 
emphasis  the  existence  in  antediluvian  times  of  a 
marked  epoch  in  which  man  worshiped  God.  This 
dim,  far-off  period  is  further  enlightened  for  us  by 
the  singular  character  of  Enoch  (Gen.  5:26),  the 
one  who  '"walked  with  God  and  was  not,  for  God 
took  him."  Amid  the  corruption  just  before  the 
Flood  we  find  Noah  (Gen.  6:8)  a  "'preacher  of 
righteousness,"  who  found  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord.  Thus  we  clearly  see  traces  of  worship  even 
in  these  dark  and  briefly  noticed  times  preceding  the 
great  overthrow  of  the  Flood. 

Just  after  the  Deluge  we  observe  the  sacrifice 
which  Noah  offered  (Gen.  8:20),  where  the  altar  is 
first  mentioned,  though  it  must  have  been  in  use  be- 
fore. In  Gen.  12:l-.'>  we  have  the  mementous  occa- 
sion of  the  call  of  Abraham  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees 
to  go  out  from  his  kindred,  who  were  idolaters,  and 
to  establish  afresh  the  true  worship  of  God.  In 
obedience  to  this  divine  command  the  old  Patriarch 
pursued  his  westward  journey,  and  almost  every 
time  mention  is  made  of  him  it  is  said  that  "he  built 
an  altar  and  called  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  When 
Jacob  was  fleeing  from  the  wrath  of  his  justly  of- 
fended brother,  he  lighted    upon    a    certain    place 


620  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

where,  we  are  told,  there  was  vouchsafed  to  him, 
conscience-stricken  as  he  must  have  been,  and  sin- 
ning as  he  certainly  was,  a  vision  of  the  divine  glory. 
In  the  morning,  awaking  from  his  dreams,  with  an 
awe  and  reverence  that  speak  to  the  heart  of  every 
reader  of  the  narrative,  he  said,  "This  is  none  other 
but  the  house  of  God,  and  this  is  the  gate  of 
heaven."  Returning  from  his  wanderings  and  suf- 
ferings, a  chastened  and  subdued  man,  not  now  with 
his  staff  alone,  but  made  by  divine  grace  and  bless- 
ing into  two  bands,  he  is  found  at  the  lonely  ford  of 
Jabbok  wrestling  all  the  night  long  with  the  angel 
of  God,  giving  us  a  picture  of  the  faithful  seeker  of 
God  in  prayer,  that  lasts  through  all  the  centuries 
to  this  day.  And  later  we  find  him  urging  his 
neglectful  household  to  put  away  the  strange  gods 
that  were  among  them,  and  to  arise  and  go  up  to 
Bethel,  and  call  sincerely  and  powerfully  once  more 
upon  the  name  of  the  true  God  of  his  father  and 
grandfather.  So  we  see  in  the  patriarchal  age,  not 
very  many,  but  marked  and  beautiful  traces  of  the 
■sincere  worship  paid,  not  to  the  multitudous  divini- 
ties of  the  heathen  mythology,  but  to  the  one  God, 
Creator  of  heaven  and  earth. 

Concerning  the  worship  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
days  of  the  Egyptian  bondage,  there  are  scanty,  if 
any,  traces.  But  we  may  safely  infer  that  the  true 
worship  of  God  was  much  dei)ressed  among  the 
downtrodden  and  sorely  afflicted  Israelites.  It  was 
perhaps  injured  also  by  contact  with  the  peculiarly 
repulsive  and  gross  idolatry  of  the  Egyptians.  Yet, 
we  should  perhaps  be  very  far  astray  if  we  deem 
that  the  worship  of  the  true  God  was  wholly  lost. 


SCRIPTCRE   TEACHING.  621 

even  in  such  a  time  as  that.  There  were  doubtless 
those  who  waited  for  the  consolation  of  Israel  even 
then,  and  preserved  in  their  times  the  traditional 
worship  of  their  fathers.  Are  we  not  safe  in  imagin- 
ing that  in  the  home  of  Amram,  the  brothers  who 
were  to  be  the  future  priest  and  lawgiver  of  the 
Tsraelitish  race,  were  taught  from  their  youth,  the 
one  in  his  constant  abiding  and  the  other  in  his 
occasional  visits,  in  the  parental  home,  something 
of  Jehovah  and  his  worship?  When  the  children  of 
Israel  emerge  from  Egypt  under  the  leadership  of 
Moses,  and  receive  at  his  hands  the  laws  from  God 
concerning  their  future  national  life  and  religious 
worship,  a  very  different  state  of  affairs  dawns  upon 
us.*  So  we  come  now  to  consider  Avorship  as  it  is 
displayed  in  the  Mosaic  institutions.  The  divine 
revelation  came  through  Moses,  and  Israel  was  very 
largely  occui)ied  with  the  ordinances  of  worship. 
The  elaborate  sacriMces  and  offerings,  the  laws  con- 
cerning the  ])riesthood,  the  vows,  the  great  feasts, 
the  tabernacle  with  its  furniture,  the  altars,  the 
ark  of  tlie  covenant,  kejit  in  the  most  holy  ]»lace — all 
these  show  how  large  a  ]»lace  the  worship  of  God  oc- 
cupied in  the  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  economy. 
Soon  after  the  Exodus  these  institutions  were  es- 
tablished as  a  part  of  the  very  life  of  Israel,  and  in 
their  main  features,  with  seasons  of  neglect  and  re- 
vival, they  held  sway  through  all  the  subsec|uent  Old 
Testament  history. 

After  the  death  of  Aaron  and  Moses  we  fall  upon 

*  The  author  is  greatly  indebted  throug-hout  the  subsequent 
discussion  to  the  profound  and  suggestive  work  of  Oehler, 
Old  Testament  Theology. 


622  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

an  obscure  period  in  Israel's  history-,  especially  as 
regards  the  matter  of  worship.  From  the  time  of 
Joshua  to  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  under 
David,  the  notices  of  worship  are  not  very  frequent 
or  full.  There  were  some  grave  irregularities,  as  in 
the  case  of  Micah  and  the  Danites,  mentioned  in  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  chapters  of  Judges,  and 
some  fearful  abuses,  as  in  the  case  of  Eli's  sons  (2 
Samuel  2:12-25),  but  upon  the  whole  the  indications 
are  that  the  Mosaic  worship  was  fairly  well  kept  up. 
Yet  there  was  not  absolute  strictness  about  it;  for 
we  find  that  Samuel,  who  was  not  a  priest,  though  a 
Levite,  offered  sacrifices,  and  at  other  places  than  at 
the  tabernacle,  yet  he  sharply  rebuked  Saul  for  pre- 
suming to  offer  sacrifice  contrary  to  law.  We  might 
say  that  this  assumption  on  the  part  of  Samuel  was 
due  to  his  prophetic  character,  or  was  authorized  by 
special  command  or  intimation  from  God.  It  was, 
however,  exceptional. 

After  Samuel's  time  we  come  to  the  flourishing 
period  in  Israel's  life  and  worship.  With  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  kingdom  under  David  and  Solo- 
mon, the  worship  of  Jehovah  took  on  a  new  phase, 
and  had  a  larger  place  in  the  national  life  than  it 
had  probably  e\^r  held.  Two  things  of  special 
interest  mark  this  period.  One  was  the  great  atten- 
tion given  to  music,  both  vocal  and  instrumental,  in 
the  worship  of  David's  time.  Numerous  singers 
were  appointed.  David  himself  was  a  musician  and 
poet  of  great  genius.  The  melodies  of  the  Psalms 
are  set  to  various  kinds  of  instruments.  The 
trumpets,  the  stringed  instruments,  the  psalteries, 
and  possibly  something  akin  to  the  pipe,  were  in 


SmiPTrUK   TEACHING. 


623 


•common  use  in  the  temple  services.  The  other  thing 
was  the  removal  of  the  tabernacle  to  Jerusalem  and 
the  building  and  consecration  of  the  temple  of  Solo- 
mon. The  establishment  of  the  temple  upon  Mount 
Zion  as  the  central  feature  of  national  life  was  an 
event  of  the  utmost  importance,  not  only  to  Israel, 
but  to  the  true  worship  of  God  in  all  subsequent 
ages.  From  the  Acropolis  at  Athens  a  stream  of 
culture  and  art  has  flowed  in  rich  profusion  through 
all  civilization;  from  the  Forum  and  the  Capitol  by 
the  side  of  the  Tiber,  government  and  law  have  wrap- 
ped the  earth  in  their  embrace;  but  from  the  holy  hill 
of  Zion  the  I'salms  of  praise  unto  God,  and  the  Law 
that  is  above  all  laws;  yea,  the  excellency  of  God 
himself  hnth  sliined  forth  in  perpetual  blessing  to  all 
mankind. 

After  this  period  of  glory  and  power,  we  come  to 
the  sad  time  of  the  divided  nation.  In  Judah,  with 
lips  and  downs  according  to  the  influence  of  the 
court.  ])ublic  worship  was  still  maintained,  but 
certainly  not  on  so  splendid  a  scale  as  under  David 
and  Solomon.  Jeroboam,  seeing  the  political  influ- 
ence which  the  worship  at  Jerusalem  must  exert, 
with  shrewd  instinct,  but  with  a  sinful  heart  that  is 
painfully  depicted  in  every  mention  of  him  there- 
after, set  up  calves  in  Bethel  and  JDan,  and  invited 
the  people  to  worshi])  there,  making  priests  even  of 
^^the  lowest  of  the  ])eople.  and  set^king  to  divert  his 
subjects  from  the  true  worship  at  Jerusalem ;  for  this 
mournful  refrain  describing  his  sin  recurs  again  and 
again  in  the  Scripture  narrative,  "■Jeroboam  the  son 
of  Nebat,  which  made  Israel  to  sin."  He  also  made 
high  places,  and  provided  a  priesthood  and  sacrifices. 


624  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

He  undertook  to  sap  the  vei\y  foundation  of  the 
religion  of  the  people,  and  to  turn  their  hearts  from 
the  rightful  worship  of  their  fathers.  However 
much  we  might  sympathize  with  his  revolt  from  the 
absurd  and  wicked  folly  of  Rehoboam,  Ave  can  find 
only  condemnation  for  his  corruption  of  the  people. 
In  both  parts  of  the  divided  nation  during  this 
corrupt  and  declining  period  of  its  history,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  the  rise  and  influence  of  the 
prophets.  They  were  the  preachers  of  their  age.  And 
in  this  and  the  following  times  the  use  of  speech  in 
teaching,  exhortation  and  warning  becomes  a  more 
important  element  in  the  religious  life  of  the  people, 
and  probably  in  some  connection  with  the  worship. 
This  brings  us  to  the  mournful  epoch  of  the  Capti- 
vity. In  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  we 
have  some  references  to  the  worshij).  private  and 
perhaps  also  in  assemblies,  of  the  people.  As  to 
music,  we  have  a  very  pathetic,  and  at  the  same  time 
suggestive,  reference  in  the  137th  Psalm : 
"By  the  rivers  of  Babylon, 

There  we  sat  down,  yea,  we  wept, 

When  we  remembered  Zion. 

Upon  the  willows  in  the  midst  thereof 

We  hanged  up  our  harps. 

For  there  they  that  led  us  captive  required  of 
us  songs. 

And  they  that  wasted  us  required  of  us  mirth, 
saying, 

Sing  us  one  of  the  songs  of  Zion. 

How  shall  we  sing  the  Lord's  song 

In  a  strange  land? 

If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem, 


SCRIPTURE  TEACHING.  625 

Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning. 

Let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth. 

If  I  remember  thee  not ; 

If  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem 

Abore  my  chief  joy." 

In  later  times,  notices  in  the  Book  of  Esther,  though 
there  is  no  direct  mention  either  of  God  or  of  worship 
in  the  book,  indicated  that  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion 
had  forms  of  worship,  for  we  find  that  they  were 
gathered  together  upon  certain  days,  and  that 
Esther  and  her  companions  and  Mordecai  were  to 
fast  before  she  went  in  to  the  king.  Possibly  the 
synagogue  came  into  being  during  the  Captivity,  or 
at  least  the  suggestion  of  it  arose  in  the  assemblies 
of  the  people  during  this  sad  time. 

Coming  to  the  post-exilian  times,  we  have  several 
items  of  great  interest  in  regard  to  the  worship  of 
Israel.  There  was  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  and 
the  re-establishment  of  the  stated  and  local  worship. 
In  the  8th  chapter  of  Nehemiah  an  important  occur- 
rence is  related.  The  people  were  gathered  together 
in  one  great  assembly  "into  the  broad  place  that  was 
before  the  water  gate;  and  they  spake  unto  Ezra  the 
scribe  to  bring  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which 
the  Lord  had  commanded  to  Israel.  And  Ezra,  the 
priest,  brought  the  law  before  the  congregation,  both 
men  and  women,  and  all  that  could  hear  with  under- 
standing, upon  the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month. 
And  he  read  therein  before  the  broad  place  that  was 
before  the  water  gate  from  early  morning  until  mid- 
day, in  the  presence  of  the  men  and  women,  and  of 
those  that  could  understand;  and  the  ears  of  all  the 


f'626  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

people  were  attentive  unto  the  book  of  the  law.  And 
Ezra  the  scribe  stood  upon  a  pulpit  of  wood  which 

they  had  made  for  the  purpose And  they  read 

in  the  book,  in  the  law  of  God,  distinctly;  and  they 
gave  the  sense,  so  that  they  understood  the  reading." 
Here  we  have  the  reading  and  exposition  of  the  law — 
a.  kind  of  preaching — to  the  assembly,  a  great  con- 
gregation outside  of  the  temple.  Whether  this  was 
an  entirely  new  thing,  or  had  been  begun  during  the 
experiences  of  the  Captivity,  it  is  impossible  to  say. 
It  is  commonly  supposed,  too,  that  about  this  time 
the  synagogue,  as  a  permanent  institution  of 
Judaism,  was  established,  and  that  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land  after  the  return  from 
captivity  these  places  and  assemblies  for  worship 
were  henceforth  a  permanent  institution. 

Passing  from  this  hasty  survey  of  the  history  of 
the  Israelitish  worship,  we  may  proceed  to  draw 
some  inferences  for  our  own  instruction.  Let  us  try 
to  discover  the  underlying  principle  of  worship  and 
its  expression.  Oehler  says  that  worship  recognizes 
the  divine  ownership,  and  must  be  the  people's 
'expression  in  act  of  that  recognition ;  that  is,  worship 
Is  the  act  of  communion  between  a  God  who  has 
chosen  a  people  for  himself  and  a  people  who  conse- 
crate themselves  to  God.  The  outward  acts  of  wor- 
ship, prayer,  sacrifice  and  praise  are  expressions  of 
this  double  truth.  Thus  prayer  and  praise  require 
a  God  who  hears,  and  sacrifices  require  one  who 
accepts.  These  acts  are  not  mere  symbols,  but  are 
also  means  divinely  appointed  by  which  that  com- 
munion between  God  and  man  may  be  realized  to  the 
worshiper,  though  not  effected  as  by  a  cause.    This 


SCRIPTURE   TEACHING. 


627 


seems  to  be  the  underlying  principle  of  worship  as 
it  exists  in  the  Old  Testament  economy. 

We  should  notice  also  the  component  parts  of  Old 
Testament  worship  as  these  were  finally  completed 
after  the  Captivity.  Gathering  them  up  in  order,  we 
find  sacrifice;  and  prayer,  both  private  and  public; 
and  praise,  vocal  and  instrumental ;  and  reading  of 
the  law;  and  exhortation,  either  direct  (prophetic) 
or  expository  and  hortatory,  based  upon  the 
Scriptures.  All  these,  except  sacrifice,  were  es- 
pecially characteristic  of  the  synagogue  worship,  and 
they  are  worthy  of  notice  for  the  important  influence 
which  they  had  upon  the  subsequent  developments 
of  worship. 

Now  when  we  come  to  consider  the  character  of 
this  worship,  we  may  naturally  infer  that  it  would 
vary  with  the  character  of  the  worshiper,  according 
as  that  avoided  or  approached  insincerity  and  formal- 
ism. There  was  always  danger  here,  but  these  abuses 
were  often  powerfully  rebuked  by  the  prophets. 
Some  of  their  sternest  denunciations,  as  in  Jeremiah 
and  Micah,  were  against  the  insincerity  and  hollow- 
ness  of  worship.  We  might  say  that  the  idea  of  a 
devout  and  spiritual  worship  under  the  Old  Dispen- 
sation was  about  like  this:  It  was  the  act  of  one 
who  deeply  felt  and  earnestly  strove  to  give  suitable 
expression  to  three  pairs  of  truths,  namely,  God's 
sovereignty  and  his  dependence;  God's  holiness  and 
his  sinfulness ;  God's  grace  and  his  gratitude.  And 
these  things  remain  and  must  ever  remain  the  basis 
of  any  true  worship  of  the  living  God. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  worship  that  is  unfolded 
to  our  view  in  the  New  Testament.     There  is  no 


628  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

sudden  jar  in  passing  from  the  worship  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  that  of  the  New;  still  less  do  we  find 
any  antagonism  between  the  two.    Yet  there  is  great 
and  marked  difference  which  we  must  feel.    We  here 
consider  the  character  of  the  New  Testament  wor- 
ship; and  its  law,  imposing  obligation  upon  Chris- 
tians, both  as  churches  and  individuals,  in  all  times. 
In  discussing  the  character  of  the  New  Testament 
worship  we  first  consider  how  it  was  related  to  the 
worship  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  synagogue ; 
for  in  this  evidently   lies  both  the  historical   and 
religious  basis  of  the  New  Testament  worship.     In 
fact  the  actual  worship  described  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  a  transition  from  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  that  of  the  Christian  church.     It  is  not  exactly 
like  either,  and  yet  is  vitally  related  to  both.    While 
the  principal  element  in  the  Old  Testament  service 
is  sacrifice,  in  the  New  Testament  the  didactic  and 
hortatory  elements  are  emphasized.  Elaborate  ritual 
marks  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  severe  simplicity 
that  of  the  New.    The  depression  of  the  idea  of  sacri- 
fice in  the  New  Testament  is  due  to  the  emphasis 
placed  on  spirituality,  and  also  more  definitely  to 
the  fact  that  the  Fulfiller  of  the  types  and  symbols 
of  the  Old  Testament  had  now  come  and  opened  the 
New  Dispensation,  and  offered  himself  as  a  sacrifice. 
Just  after  New  Testament  times,   the   destruction 
of  the  temple  and  the  scattering  of  the  Jews  through- 
out all  nations,  historically  ended  the  era  of  ritual 
and  sacrifice.    When  that  momentous  event  occurred 
it   found  the  Christian  church,   the   new   spiritual 
I-srael;  substituted  ■  for  the  ancient  theocracy,  and 
ready  for  a  change  in  the  mode  of  worship.  No  doubt 


SCRIPTURE  TEACHING. 


629 


also  the  coming  of  Gentile  elements  into  the  churches 
had  inflnenoe  in  doing  away  with  the  notion  of  sacri- 
fice; though  this  statement  is  perhaps  to  be  qualified, 
when  we  remember  that  in  many  of  the  heathen 
religions  there  were  also  elaborate  sacrifices.  Yet 
in  abandoning  idolatry  and  realizing  its  degrading 
features,  the  Gentile  Christian  had  probably  come 
to  entertain  considerable  repugnance  toward  heathen 
festivals  and  feasts.  Both  in  Romans  and  in  1  Cor- 
inthians, the  apostle  Paul  discusses  the  matter  of 
eating  meats  that  had  been  offered  to  idols,  in  such  a 
way  as  to  show  that  there  were  many  who  regarded 
this  practice  with  abhorrence,  while  others  looked 
upon  it  as  a  matter  of  indifference,  because  the  idol 
was  nothing  in  the  world.  The  form  of  worship  in 
the  synagogues  of  course  omitted  sacrifices,  as  these 
were  legally  offered  only  at  the  temple.  This  also 
prepared  the  way  for  the  worship  of  the  Christian 
churches.  The  parts  of  the  service  of  the  synagogues 
were  the  four  elements  of  prayer,  praise,  reading  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  exhortation ;  and  these  all  easily, 
naturally  and  permanently  passed  on  into  the 
Christian  churches  and  are  preserved  among  us  to 
this  day.  The  first  Christians  were  Jews,  and  as 
such  they  observed  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  until 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  but  already  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  shows  us  that  the  great  sacrifice  of 
Christ  annulled  by  fulfillment  the  older  sacrifices  of 
the  Mosaic  law;  and  of  the  Gentile  converts,  of 
course,  no  sacrifices  were  required.  The  observance 
of  the  ordinances,  especially  the  Lord's  Supper, 
pointed  back  to  that  great  sacrifice  to  which  the 
ofiferings  under  the  law  pointed  forward,  and  these 


630  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

simpler  rites  displaced  the  more  elaborate  ceremonies 
of  the  temple. 

The  second  question  in  regard  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment worship  is,  How  was  it  exemplified  in  the* 
actions  and  teachings  of  Christ?  Our  Lord  as  a 
worshiper  would  be  good  subject  for  investigation 
and  exposition.  No  doubt  the  twelve-year-old  boy 
engaged  in  the  worship  of  the  temple  on  his  visit 
there  with  his  parents.  He  was  a  frequent,  doubtless 
an  habitual,  attendant  at  the  synagogues;  for  we 
are  told  that  "as  his  custom  was  on  the  Sabbath  day 
he  went  into  the  synagogue  to  worship."  He  twice, 
with  the  fiery  zeal  of  an  old  prophet  cleansed  the 
temple  of  unspiritual  traffickers  who  degraded  its 
holy  precincts ;  yet  we  find  him  teaching  the  woman 
Samaria  that  particular  places  are  not  essential  to 
spiritual  worship.  He  paid  the  temple  tax  and  at  the 
same  time  declared  his  exemption  from  the  claim. 
He  preached  from  a  passage  in  Isaiah  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Nazareth,  but  apparently  without  a  text 
in  that  of  Capernaum;  and  so,  on  the  mountain,  by 
the  sea,  in  his  walks,  in  the  homes  of  the  people, 
sometimes  to  the  multitudes,  sometimes  to  a  few, 
and  sometimes  even  to  one  inquirer,  we  find  him  pro- 
claiming the  great  truths  which  he  had  come  into 
the  world  to  establish  and  send  on.  No  doubt  he 
often  prayed  with  others,  but  we  know  how  he  loved 
to  pray  alone.  So  he  teaches  his  disciples  to  pray 
together,  and  carefully  enjoins  secret  devotion.  As 
to  the  matter  of  singing,  who  can  fail  to  recall  the 
closing  scene  at  the  Last  Supper  when  "they  sang 
a  hymn  and  went  out  into  the  Mount  of  Olives"? 
We  surely  infer  that  our  Saviour  himself  joined  in 


SCRIPTURE   TEACHING. 


631 


the  song.  Is  it  wrong  to  imagine  that  he  even  led 
it?  Is  it  wrong  to  imagine  sometliing  of  tlie  (piality. 
the  softness,  the  expressiveness  of  his  voice  as  he  led 
in  sacred  song?  Shall  not  holy  song  be  for  ever 
sanctified  to  us  in  the  thought  that  Jesus  sang?  If 
at  the  close  of  the  Supper,  may  we  not  also  infer 
that  he  sang  at  other  times,  and  that  with  him,  as 
with  his  ancestor  David,  it  was  one  way  in  which  he 
poured  out  his  soul  unto  God?  We  have  the  strongest 
impression,both  from  his  example  and  his  teaching, 
that  the  worship  which  he  enjoins  and  exemplifies, 
should  be  at  once  genuine,  simple  and  spiritual. 

Another  question  of  importance  is.  How  do  we  find 
the  New  Testament  worship  set  forth  in  the  example 
and  precepts  of  the  Apostles?  Early  in  the  history 
(Acts  1:12-14)  we  find  the  little  band  of  believers 
worshiping  together  in  an  upper  room  at  Jerusalem. 
The  distingiiishing  feature  of  this  first  worship  was 
prayer  and  sui)pli('ation,  but  soon  (Acts  1  :15-2:14) 
we  find  Peter  gx)eaking  and  exhorting  from  Ihe  Scrip- 
tures, addressing  himself  first  to  the  brethren  and  then 
to  the  multitude.  We  find  that  they  continued  to  wor- 
ship in  the  temple  (Acts  2:46-3:lf.),  and  to  meet 
with  their  Jewish  brethren  in  the  synagogues  (Acts 
G:9)  to  ^'dispute,"  but  no  doubt  to  worship.  It  was 
Paul's  established  custom  to  go  to  the  synagogues 
of  his  fellow-countrymen;  and  toward  the  close  of 
his  career  he  goes  to  Jerusalem  to  offer  sacrifices^ 
and  is  found  and  assaulted  in  the  temple.  But  there- 
was  also  other  worship.  Remember  Lydia  and  the 
little  band  on  the  river's  brink  on  a  Sabbath  morn- 
ing near  Philippi,  where  a  place  of  prayer  was^  and 
where  the  Lord  opened  her  heart  that  she  attended 


632  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

unto  the  things  that  were  spoken  by  Paul;  nor  let 
Uj3  forget  the  gatherings  in  private  houses,  in  upper 
rooms,  in  hired  dwellings  and  in  schools.  Paul  went 
to  the  ''school  of  one  Tyrannus."  That  might  have 
been  the  first,  but  certainly  it  has  not  been  the  last 
time  that  Christian  worship  was  conducted  in  a 
school-house. 

In  all  this  we  find  by  statement  and  inference  that 
the  use  of  Serii)ture — reading,  exposition,  exhorta- 
tion, was  a  part  of  the  worship;  also  that  prayer 
was;  but  what  of  singing?  Nothing  is  said  of  this 
especially  in  regard  to  the  worship,  but  how  can  we 
forget  those  songs  of  praise  at  mid-night  in  the  inner 
prison  at  Philippi,  where  with  lacerated  backs  and 
feet  fast  in  the  stocks,  but  with  joyous  hearts  and 
loosened  tongues,  Paul  and  Silas  sang  praises  unto 
God?  We  cannot  doubt  that  what  was  done  in  the 
prison  was  a  reminisence  of  the  public  worship  of 
God.  They  had  sung  with  their  brethren  the  songs 
of  praise  connected  with  their  worship.  We  cannot 
doubt  that  this  was  an  accepted  and  well  established 
part  of  the  earliest  Christian  worship. 

When  we  come  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  we  find 
clear  light.  He  charges  Timothy  as  to  the  prayers, 
those  of  public  worsliip  (1  Tim.  2:1,2),  and  also  as 
to  the  reading,  exhortation,  the  teaching  (1  Tim. 
4 :13).  The  reading  here  referred  to,  is  very  properly 
regarded  by  many  commentators  to  be  the  public 
reading  of  the  Scriptures  in  worship.  In  two  well 
known  passages (Eph.  5 :19,20 ;  Col.  3 :1G)  he  emphati. 
cally  enjoins  the  worship  of  song:  "Speaking  one 
to  another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songa, 
singing  and  making  melody  with  your  heart  to  the 


SCRIPTURE   TEACHING.  633 

Lord."     Some  think  that  Paul  twice  quotes  hymns 

(Eph.  5:14)  : 

"Awake,  thou  that  sleepest, 
And  arise  from  the  dead, 
And  Christ  shall  shine  upon  thee," 

and  in  1.  Timothy  3:16: 

"He  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
Justified  in  the  Spirit, 
Seen  of  angels, 
Preached  among  the  nations, 
Believed  on  in  the  world. 
Received  up  in  glory." 

This  may  not  be  j)oetry,  but  the  clauses  have  a 
certain  relation  to  each  other,  and  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble that  these  are  fragments  of  early  Christian 
Jiymns,  which  have  under  the  Apostle's  pen  become 
part  of  the  divinely  inspired  Word.  So  there  can  be 
no  question  as  to  what  were  the  elements  of  New 
Testament  worship;  prayer,  praise,  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  teaching  or  exhortation. 

As  to  the  observance  of  the  ordinances,  these  were 
probably  held  in  connection  with  the  worship.  At 
Troas  we  find  that  after  the  celebration  of  the 
Supper,  which  was  doubtless  connected  with  other 
parts  of  the  worship,  Paul  preached  on  far  into  the 
night.  In  regard  to  baptism  we  do  not  know,  but 
it  is  not  unlikely  that  some  worship  was  held  in  con- 
nection with  this  ordinance  also. 

As  to  the  spirit  of  this  service  of  worship,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  adduce  passages  of  proof;  that 


634  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH, 

lies  upon  the  surface,  and  yet  penetrates  to  the  bosom 
of  it  all.  No  reader  of  the  New  Testament  can  fail 
to  mark  the  qualities  that  characterize  its  worship. 
It  was  sincere,  reverent,  devout  toward  God;  and 
toward  man  it  was  eminently  practical  and  tending 
to  edification.    Would  it  were  ever  so ! 

A  few  things  must  be  said  concerning  the  law  of 
the  New  Testament  worship.  By  this  is  meant 
whether  the  worship  set  forth  in  Scripture  is  still 
the  law  for  Christian  people  and  Christian  churches. 
If  this  be  granted,  then  to  what  extent  must  there 
be  reproduction  of  the  elements  of  that  worship,  and 
to  what  extent  may  additions  and  changes  be 
admitted? 

The  fundamental  principles  of  worship  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  Bible,  bath  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ments, are  perpetual  and  unchangeable.  True  wor- 
ship must  ever  be  based,  as  we  saw  in  speaking  of 
the  Old  Testament  service,  upon  the  recognition  on 
the  part  of  the  worshipers  of  God's  power  and  our 
dependence,  of  God's  holiness  and  our  sin,  of  God'g 
grace  and  our  gratitude.  Nothing  can  disturb  this 
sacred  foundation  of  worship,  and  there  can  be  no 
true  worship  of  Almighty  God  without  the  recogni- 
tion of  these  six  respectively  corresponding  princi- 
ples. 

Likewise  the  spirit  of  scriptural  worship  is  of 
perpetual  obligation.  Our  Lord  teaches  us  this  very 
plainly,  and  as  was  said  awhile  ago,  it  lies  upon  the 
surface  of  the  whole  New  Testament  description  and 
teaching.  To  be  acceptable  to  God  worship  must  be 
sincere,  simple,  devout  and  reverential. 

The  four  great  elements  of  worship  must  remain : 


SCRIPTURE  TEACHING.  635 

prayer,  praise,  the  reading  of  the  Scripture,  and 
teaching  or  preaching.  They  are  the  well  established 
custom  of  all  Christian  churches  in  all  ages  and  coun. 
tries,  with  occasional  and  eccentric  exceptions.  Of 
course  in  some  cases  one  or  more  of  these  elements 
may  be  omitted  according  to  the  circumstances,  and 
they  may  be  variously  combined,  but  there  is  no  good 
reason  for  change.  Whatever  novelties  we  may  intro- 
duce to  render  the  service  attractive,  or  to  save  it 
from  being  monotonous  or  ritualistic,  they  must  be 
in  the  re-arrangement  or  combination  of  some  or 
all  of  these  four  essential  parts  of  Christian  worship. 
As  to  forms  of  worship,  there  is  no  New  Testament 
rule  prescribing  these.  There  is  here  the  greatest 
room  for  differences  of  opinion  and  practice.  There 
has  been  and  there  continues  to  be  every  variety 
among  the  different  Christian  bodies.  Still  it 
hardly  admits  of  question  that  elaborate  ritual  is 
contrary  to  the  simplicity  of  the  New  Testament 
worship,  and  formalism  is  certainly  beyond  all 
doubt  utterly  opposed  to  its  spirit.  On  the  other 
hand  there  is  no  requirement  demanding  the  extreme 
of  bareness  and  the  absence  of  all  form.  We  ought 
not  to  forget  that  our  Lord  gave  to  his  disciples  a 
model  of  prayer,  and  yet  in  the  very  same  eoniieclion 
warned  them  against  bareness  and  vain  repetitions. 
We  do  not  know  just  how  the  first  Christians  wor- 
shiped, and  so  cannot  establish  a  perfectly  clear  pre- 
cedent from  the  New  Testament  in  this  regard,  but 
one  thing  is  certain,  the  necessities  of  a  becoming 
public  worship  demand  order  and  not  confusion. 


636  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 


OUTLINE  OF  CHArTER  VI. 

HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OP  WORSHIP. 

I.  The  Early  Centuries,  70-590. 

1.  Importance  of  the  period, 

2.  Facts  as  to  worship. 

(1)  Places. 

(2)  Seasons. 

(3)  Elements. 

(4)  The  ordinances. 

II.  The  Middle  Ages,  590-1517. 

1.  Architecture. 

2.  Scripture  reading,  and  preaching. 

3.  Liturgies. 

4.  Music. 

6.  Festivals. 

7.  Perversions  and  superstitions. 

III.  Modern  Times,  1517 — present  time. 

1.  The  Greek  and  Roman  Churches. 

2.  The  liturgical  Protestant  churches. 

3.  The  non-liturgical  churches. 


CtlxVPTEK  VI. 

WORSHIP  OF  TUB  CHURCHES, 
HISTORICAL  SKETCH. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  overestimate  the  im- 
portance of  the  historical  point  of  view  in  studj'ing 
(Mii-istian  woi-sliip.  \>\'  (  aiuiot  understand  the  great 
subject  at  all  without  some  knowledge  of  the  history. 
Here  of  course  we  can  only  take  a  brief  and  very 
hasty  survey  of  the  principal  matters  involved.  Great 
works  on  Church  History  usually  give  tolerably  com- 
plete accounts  of  the  customs  prevalent  in  each  age 
in  regard  to  public  worship;  and  besides  there  are 
numerous  special  treatises  on  Christian  Antiquities 
wherein  worship  finds  more  detailed  discussion.  The 
works  of  liinglunii,  Coleman,  Kiddle.  (Tuericke  and 
others,  may  be  studied  with  profit.  In  addition  to 
these  there  are  various  works  devoted  especialh'  to 
different  parts  of  worship,  hymnologj%  architecture, 
liturgies,  preaching  and  otluM-  iiiarters. 

For  the  brief  ontliiie  Iumc  pi()i»osed  the  hislory  of 
worship  falls  within  the  three  large  periods  of  cliurch 
history.  The  Early  Centuries,  A.  1)..  7(>-.')!)();  the 
Middle  Ages,  590-1517;  and  Modern  Times,  1517  to 
the  present  time.  We  accordingly  give  our  attention 
first  to  the  development  during  the  early  centuries, 
that  is,  from  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70,  to 
Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  in  590.  The  general  im- 
portance and  interest  of  this  period  in  its  bearing 

637 


638  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

on  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  the  world  is 
universally  admitted;  and  in  nothing  does  the  great 
significance  of  the  age  appear  more  impressive  than 
in  relation  to  Christian  worship.  In  A.  D.  70  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  the  victorious 
Romans.  The  Christian  Jews  henceforth  had  no 
more  a  divided  worship — Christianity  was  all  to 
them.  The  synagogues,  indeed,  remained,  but  the 
sacrifices  were  ended  forever.  It  is  fair  to  regard, 
therefore,  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  after  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  as  a  turning  point  in  the  char- 
acter and  modes  of  Christian  worship.  Looking  at  the 
other  terminus,  A.  D.  590,  we  find  at  Rome  the  great 
bishop,  Gregory  I.  He  was  not  only  active  in  con- 
solidating the  power  of  the  papacy,  in  settling  many 
of  the  doctrines  and  canons  of  the  church,  but  he 
was  also  very  influential  in  fixing  that  elaborate 
liturgical  worship  that  had  been  slowly  growing  up 
through  the  preceding  centuries.  Between  the  limits 
of  the  periods  thus  marked  out  lies  a  wonderful  age 
of  transition,  of  development,  of  preparation  for 
coming  ages,  in  regard  to  worship,  as  well  as  to  life 
and  doctrine  in  the  church.  About  midway,  that  is, 
in  the  year  325,  was  held  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 
From  this  time  Christian  history,  life,  doctrine  and 
worship  entered  upon  new  lines  of  development. 
When  the  Emperor  Constantine  took  Christianity 
under  the  imperial  protection  and  patronage  a  new 
era  dawned  upon  the  church  and  the  world.  It 
afl'ected  the  life  of  the  church  in  every  way,  and  not 
less  notably  in  worship  than  in  other  things.  When 
Christianity  became  fashionable  its  worship  took  on 
a  new  phase.     It  became  more  worldly  and   less 


HISTOUICAL  SKETCH.  639 

devout,  more  showy  and  less  simple,  more  formal 
and  less  genuine.  The  influences  thus  started  have 
been  unhappily  permanent.  Christian  worship  in 
the  Catholic  Church  and  in  liturgical  bodies  has 
never  recovered  its  pristine  simplicity  and  pui-ity. 
We  must  notice  more  in  detail  some  of  the  elements 
of  worship  within  this  period. 

In  regard  to  tbe  place  of  worship  there  is  much 
to  interest  us.  In  apostolic  times  the  Christians 
worshiped  in  synagogues  and  private  houses.  In 
times  of  persecution  they  had  places  of  worship  in 
fields,  mountains,  caves  and  catacombs;  but  these 
were  not  all.  Coleman  says.*  "There  is  satisfactory 
evidence  of  the  existence  of  such  churches  [he  means 
buildings]  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century, 
and  that  Christians  were  allowed  to  appropriate  to 
themselves  such  places  of  worship  undc^r  the 
emperors  from  A.  D.  222  to  235,  and  again  from  260 
to  300."  These  intervals  were  those  in  which 
persecution  was  allowed  to  lapse.  According  to 
Riddlef  houses  of  worship  were  called  by  different 
names.  He  says  the  word  curiacon  from  which,  as 
we  have  seen,  our  English  word  "church"  is  derived, 
occurred  first  in  writings  of  the  fourth  century  and 
then  in  official  and  public  documents.  Corre- 
spondingly in  Latin  the  building  was  called  domini- 
cum,  both  words  meaning  the  Lord's  place,  or  the 
Lord's  house.  Sometimes  the  place  is  called  domus 
Dei,  the  house  of  God,  in  Latin.  In  Eusebius'  day 
it  was  sometimes  called,  the  "house  of  the  church," 
the  word  ccclesia  being  confined  to  the  assembly. 

*  Priviitice  Christiavity,  ch.  xiii.,  ^  1.. 
t  Christian  Antiquities,  b.  vi„  chap,  1, 


640  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

But  the  word  ecclesia  soon  come  to  denote  the  build- 
ing as  well  as  the  assembly.  There  were  many 
Christian  churches  in  various  provinces  of  the 
Roman  empire  during  the  third  century.  Early  in 
the  fourth  century,  that  is,  about  the  year  302  and 
following,  when  the  Diocletian  persecution  broke 
out,  man}'  houses  of  worship  were  leveled  to  the 
ground.  This  shoAvs  that  there  had  been  considerable 
building  before  that  time.  When  Constantine 
became  emperor  his  encouragement  of  Christianity 
led  to  the  rebuilding  of  many  churches ;  besides  that, 
he  himself  is  said  to  have  founded  and  constructed 
a  great  many ;  and  some  of  the  heathen  temples  were 
turned  into  churches. 

In  regard  to  the  sacred  seasons  there  was  develop- 
ment. Sunday,  "the  Lord's  day,"  so  called  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  early  became  the  regular  day 
of  worship.  In  Pliny's  famous  letter  to  Trajan, 
written  early  in  the  second  century,  concerning  the 
Christians  in  Bithynia,  the  fact  is  mentioned  that 
the  Christians  met  stato  die,  on  a  stated  day.  No 
doubt  this  was  Sunday,  '^'the  Lord's  day."  Justin 
Martyr  tells  us  "that  on  Sunday  all  the  Christians, 
living  either  in  the  city  or  country,  met  together. 
The  leading  presbyter,  after  the  Scriptures  had  been 
read,  addressed  the  congregation;  then  they  cele- 
brated the  Lord's  Supper,  offered  up  pra^-er,  and 
sent  some  portions  of  the  consecrated  elements  to 
those  who  were  sick  at  home."  Tertullian  describes 
the  principal  parts  of  Christian  worship  as  "the 
solemnities  of  the  Lord's  day."  The  day  was 
regarded  as  a  festival.  It  commemorated  the  resur- 
rection of  our  Lord  from  the  dead,  and  wa"s"thus 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  641 

fraught  with  holy  joy.  It  was  commonly  called 
among  Christians  themselves  ''the  Lord's  day,"  in 
order  to  distinguish  it  ;  but  among  the  heathen  it 
reserved  its  common  name  of  Sunday.  In  the  early 
ages  it  was  never  called  the  Sabbath,  as  that  term 
was  reserved  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Under  Con- 
stantine  and  his  successors  some  legal  restrictions 
were  thrown  around  the  Lord's  day,  and  its  sanctity 
was  preserved.  Some  say  from  this  that  Constantine 
really  established  the  Christian  Sabbath,  but  such 
an  inference  is  wide  of  the  mark.  He  only  legalized 
under  civil  law  what  had  already  been  established 
as  a  religious  institution  from  apostolic  times. 

The  other  festivals  of  the  church  grew  up  slowly. 
Easter  was  the  earliest  of  the  church  festivals,  and 
the  observance  of  it  dated  back  to  very  ancient  times. 
Early  in  the  second  century  the  time  of  the  observ- 
ance was  the  subject  of  dispute.  Pentecost  (Whit- 
sunday) was  the  next  in  order.  It  is  mentioned  by 
Irenreus  and  Tertullian  in  the  second  century.  The 
fifty  days  (quiuquagesima)  were  spent  as  a  "con- 
tinuous Sunday"  (Schaff.)  The  feast  of  Epiphany, 
(January  6th),  was  also  of  early  origin,  in  the 
second  or  third  century,  and  originally  commemo- 
rated, as  its  name  indicates,  the  appearance  of  the 
Lord  in  the  flesh,  and  thence  his  baptism,  to  which 
other  items  were  added  later.  Says  Riddle  (p.  656)  : 
''The  feast  of  the  Nativity,  or  Christmas,  was  intro- 
duced during  the  fourth  century.  After  the 
establishment  of  this  festival  a  kind  of  system  was 
introduced  by  which  the  different  festivals  of  the 
church  began  to  be  regarded  with  reference  to  their 
object  rather  than,  as  formerly,  to  their  date  and 


642  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

origin."  Before  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  we 
find  a  three-fold  cycle  of  sacred  seasons,  by  which 
the  personal  history  of  our  Saviour  was  represented 
in  a  kind  of  chronological  order.  Each  of  the  three 
different  feasts  represented  some  leading  idea,  and 
stood  in  connection  with  other  festivals,  before  and 
-after  it,  by  way  of  preparation  or  companionship. 
These  three  principal  feasts  were  Christmas,  Easter 
and  Whitsuntide. 

The  parts  of  worship  were  the  four  scriptural  ones 
of  prayer,  praise,  Scripture  reading,  and  preaching. 
In  the  period  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea  the  prayers 
were  not  liturgy,  but  mostly  free;  yet  even  in  these 
earlier  times  there  were  germs  of  liturgical  worship, 
as  we  see  from  the  Didache  and  other  sources.  But 
the  events  of  the  fourth  century  gave  wonderful  im- 
pulse to  this  development,  and  forms  of  prayer  soon 
came  to  be  the  established  custom,  and  they  have 
never  been  dislodged  from  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Catholic  Churches,  nor  from  some  of  the  Protestant 
bodies.  It  seems  that  the  earliest  form  of  prayer 
arose  in  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  It  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions.  That  work 
cannot  be  placed  earlier  than  the  third  century ;  but 
Tertullian,  Cyprian  and  Origen  show  that  the  Lord's 
Prayer  was  beginning  to  be  used  as  a  form  in  their 
time.  Up  to  and  including  the  fifth  century,  the  use 
of  this  prayer  was  restricted  to  actual  communi- 
cants in  the  church,  as  it  was  felt  that  no  other  had 
a  right  to  address  God  as  "our  Father."  The  earliest 
regular  forms  used  in  worship  were  ejaculatory, 
such  as  "amen;"  "hallelujah;"  "the  Lord  have  mercy 
on  us"  (Kyrie  eleison)  ;  "glory  to  God  in  the  highest" 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  643 

(Gloria  in  excelsis)  ;  "the  Lord  be  with  you" 
[Dominus  voUscum)  ;  "lift  up  your  hearts"  {Sursum 
corda),  and  others.  The  Kyrie  cleison  "Lord  have 
mercy,"  early  l)ecame  a  response  in  the  church  among 
the  worshipers,  and  remains  in  both  Greek  and 
Koman  churclips  of  to-day.  It  was  not  trantslated 
into  the  Latin,  but  the  Greek  form  was  preserved 
somewhat  corrupted,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrew, 
"amen,"  hallelujah,"  and  "hosannah."  One  of  the 
most  solemn  and  beautiful  of  these  early  forms 
is  the  Swsum  corda,  "Lift  up  your  hearts,"  address- 
ed to  the  worshipers,  just  before  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  to  which  the  congregation  responded,  Hahemus 
ad  Dominum,  "We  have  them  toward  the  Lord." 
Cyprian  is  said  to  be  the  earliest  writer  who  men- 
tions the  use  of  this  formula  in  public  worship,  and 
on  this  account  it  has  been  commonly  attributed  to 
him  as  its  author;  but  the  manner  in  which  he  speaks 
of  it  in  his  treatise  on  the  Lord's  Prayer  .^hows 
plainly  that  it  had  been  introduced  before  his  time, 
and  was  in  general  and  well-known  use  when  he 
wrote.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  mention  a 
form  of  prayer,  first  for  the  catechumens;  then  for 
energumens;  then  for  the  candidates  for  baptism, 
called  competentcs ',  then  for  the  penitents,  and 
finally  when  these  all  had  been  dismissed,  the  prayer 
for  the  faithful — missa  fidclium. 

Of  praise,  or  psalmody,  there  was  early  mention, 
as  we  saw  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Undoubtedly  it 
was  of  Hebrew  origin,  from  the  temple  and  syna- 
gogue services.  Tn  the  earliest  ages  the  psalms 
^-ere  chanted.  There  were  also  "responses,"  as  they 
were  called,  which  were  perhaps  verses  chanted  in 


644  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

unison  by  the  people.  The  letter  of  Pliny  to  Trajan, 
before  mentioned,  written  about  the  year  114,  men- 
tions a  sort  of  antiphonal  singing  on  the  part  of  the 
Christians  in  Bithynia.  His  language  is  that  "they 
sang  together  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  to  God."  The 
word  translated  "together"  {invicem),  however,  may 
also  mean  they  sang  in  turn,  or  responsively,  to  each 
other.  Riddle  says :  "It  is  remarkable  that  not  only 
have  no  hymns  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  come 
down  to  us,  but  not  even  the  name  of  any  hymn 
writer  belonging  to  that  period  has  been  recorded." 
Later,  however,  there  were  both  hymns  and  hymn 
writers,  and  the  singing  of  hymns  was  a  part  of  the 
worship.  The  heretics  made  hymns  and  endeavored 
to  propagate  their  doctrines  in  that  way.  They  were 
met  in  two  ways.  One  was  by  composing  orthodox 
hymns,  and  the  other  was,  in  some  places,  by  wholly 
forbidding  the  use  of  hymns  in  public  worship,  other 
than  the  Psalms.  Responsive  choral  singing  seems 
to  have  originated  in  the  East.  It  was  introduced, 
or  at  least  encouraged,  in  the  West  by  Ambrose,  the 
celebrated  bishop  of  Milan,  who  took  great  interest 
in  singing,  and  from  whom  the  Ambrosian  mode  of 
singing  is  named.  From  the  Latin  Church  there 
remain  no  hymns  of  an  earlier  date  than  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  was  the 
first,  or  among  the  first,  to  compose  Latin  hymns; 
but  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  next  period,  made  wonderful  strides  in  this 
department  of  Christian  worship  after  it  had  once 
been  introduced.  Gregory  the  Great  also,  at  the 
close  of  the  early  period,  paid  much  attention  to 
the  psalmody  of  the  church.     The  style  of  music 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  645 

which  he  favored  and  helped  on  was  of  a  more 
solemn  and  stately  kind  than  that  of  Ambrose,  and 
is  called  from  him  the  ( Jregoi-ian  melody. 

In  ref^ard  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  this 
came,  as  we  have  seen,  directly  from  the  synagogue 
worship  into  the  Christian  churches,  and  has  existed 
probably  without  a  break  from  the  apostolic  times. 
And  in  the  earliest  account  we  have  of  worship 
after  the  Ai)ostles — that  of  Justin  Martyr  in  the 
second  century — the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  by 
an  appointed  reader  is  mentioned. 

In  the  Apostolic  CoustifutionJi  the  reading  of 
lessons  out  of  the  Scripture  is  reckoned  among  the 
chief  parts  of  public  worship.  Origen  also  mentions 
the  use  of  Scripture  in  public  and  private,  and 
Chrysostom  seemed  to  regard  the  public  reading  of 
the  Scriptures  as  the  center  of  the  whole  worship. 
(It  may  be  permitted  here  to  remark  that  the  most 
eloquent  preacher  of  ancient  times,  and  possibly  of 
any  time,  sets  the  modern  preacher  a  good  example 
in  emphasizing  the  reading  of  God's  word  more  than 
his  own  performance.)  Chrysostom  also  indicates 
that  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  was  by  regular 
appointment,  so  that  certain  parts  were  read  in 
course  and  according  to  certain  appointed  divisions. 
We  know  that  the  division  into  chapters  and  verses 
arose  much  later;  but  ali-eady,  probably  in  imitation 
of  the  custom  of  the  synagogue,  certain  portions  were 
appointed  for  particular  times,  and  out  of  this 
speedily  grew  the  habit,  yet  retained  in  the  liturgical 
churches,  of  having  portions  of  Scripture  appointed 
for  all  the  feast  days,  and  even  all  the  days  of  the 
year.    In  earlier  times  the  selection  was  left  to  the 


64:6  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

discretion  of  the  bishop,  but  later  it  was  appointed 
by  church  authority.  It  was  the  practice  for  both 
the  reader  and  the  congregation  to  stand  during  the 
reading  of  the  Scripture,  certainly  in  some  places 
and  periods.  This  custom  still  survives  in  places  in 
Germany  and  Switzerland. 

As  to  preaching,  this  consisted  in  the  earlier  times 
of  reading  a  passage  of  Scripture  and  commenting 
upon  it,  and  these  expositions  were  called  homilies, 
"talks,"  from  which  our  word  "homiletics"  is  derived. 
But  the  homily  grew  into  a  more  orderly  and  set 
speech,  and  in  the  times  of  Chrvsostom,  following 
the  patronage  of  Christianity  under  Constantine, 
the  sermon  blossomed  out  into  a  great  oration 
founded,  however,  still  upon  a  passage  of  Scripture, 
though  the  passage  chosen  gradually  dwindled  into 
the  modern  brief  text. 

In  regard  to  the  celebration  of  the  ordinances, 
these  were  esteemed  of  especial  importance  in  wor* 
ship.  There  were  services  at  baptism — prayers  and 
some  ceremonies.  It  is  probable  that  the  reciting 
of  the  creed  originated  in  this  way.  The  candidate 
was  required  to  profess  his  faith,  and  it  was  very  easy 
to  drop  into  the  recitation  of  what  is  known  as  the 
Apostles'  Creed.  Before  receiving  baptism,  the 
candidate  was  made  to  turn  his  face  to  the  west  and 
to  speak  a  form  of  words  renouncing  the  devil  and 
all  his  works  and  pomps.  In  connection  with  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  we  saw  in  dis- 
cussing that  subject,  there  was  a  very  elaborate 
liturgy.  Thus  it  appears  that  mainly  in  connection 
with  the  two  ordinances  the  liturgical  service  of  the 
church  arose.    This  shows  us  that  in  the  early  ages 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  64T 

the  ordinances  were  regarded  as  centers  of  worship, 
and  not  as  mere  appendages  to  it,  as  is  too  often  the 
case  with  us. 

We  pass  now  to  the  worship  which  i)rpvailed  dur- 
ing the  Aliddle  Ages,  tliat  is,  from  500  to  1517 — 
from  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  the  Great  to  the 
outbreak  under  Martin  Luther.  The  impulses  given 
to  worship  in  the  first  six  centuries  were  carried  on 
and  perfected  in  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the 
two  great  hierarchies  of  the  East  and  West — the 
Greek  and  Roman  churches.  Developments  went  on 
in  the  directiotis  marked  out  in  the  early  period. 
ThG?*e  is  much  that  appeals  to  reverence  and  de- 
votion ami  to  the  historic  and  poetic  sense,  but  much 
also  that  repels  the  devout  worshiper  and  makes  him 
yearn  for  the  simpler  and  purer  worship  of  the  New 
Testament  and  of  the  first  Christian  ages.  Were 
there  none  through  all  these  long  centuries  who 
preserved  the  simj)licity  and  directness  of  scrip- 
tural worship?  Did  men  find  God  only  through  the 
complicated  and  elaborate  ceremonies  of  the  Roman 
Church?  We  cannot  believe  it.  Hidden  away  from 
historic  notice,  we  may  believe  that  many  devout 
souls  in  the  quiet  of  their  homes  and  hearts,  and 
possibly  in  some  secret  assemblies  in  the  dens  and 
caverns  Qf  the  earth,- sought  and  found  God,  not 
through  prescribed  ceremonies,  but  as  Jesus  taught 
the  Samaritan  woman,  ''in  spirit  and  in  truth." 

From  the  times  of  Gregory  through  the  Middle 
Ages  there  was  wonderful  development  in  church 
architecture.  Toward  the  close  of  the  preceding 
epoch,  that  is,  in  the  year  557,  the  emi)eror  Justinian 
completed  his  restoration  of  the  famous  church  of 


64-S  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

St.  Sophia  in  Constantinople.  He  was  so  charmed 
with  the  success  of  his  undertaking  that  he  is  said 
to  have  exclaimed  in  gazing  on  the  beauty  of  that 
finished  work  of  art :  "I  have  outdone  thee,  O  Solo- 
mon!" He  built  many  other  churches  also;  but  for 
many  succeeding  centuries  there  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  any  great  development  in  this  regard. 
There  are  few  traces  of  church  building  from  the 
fifth  to  the  eighth  centuries.  Kiddle  states  that 
during  this  period  many  heathen  temples  were 
turned  into  churches.  He  says  further  (p.  711)  : 
"During  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries  many 
churches  were  erected  in  Italy,  France,  Sp^iin, 
England,  Scotland,  Germany  in  the  Byzantine  style 
and  taste  with  which  these  western  countries  had 
become  acquainted  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  Goths,  especially  Theodoric,  and  which  for  this 
reason  obtained  the  appellation  of  Gothic,"  Owing 
to  the  general  expectation  in  the  tenth  century  that 
the  world  would  come  to  an  end  with  the  thou- 
sandth year  after  Christ,  church  building,  as  well 
as  other  things,  was  greatly  neglected,  but  after  that 
it  sprang  up  again  with  renewed  interest,  and  it 
is  said  that  already  in  the  eleventh  century  money 
to  build  churches  was  obtained  from  the  sale  of  in- 
dulgences. To  quote  again  from  Riddle  (p.  713)  : 
"In  the  thirteenth  century,  ecclesiastical  archi- 
tecture attained  to  the  height  of  its  perfection. 
After  the  introduction  of  the  pointed  arch,  at  the 
beginning  of  this  period,  buildings  were  erected 
which  exceeded  in  size  and  architectural  beauty  all 
which  had  hitherto  been  dedicated  to  the  service  of 
the  church.     The   style   of  architecture  which   ob- 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  649 

tainod  at  this  time  has  been  usually  denominated 
Gothic,  or  new  Gothic;  but  it  may  more  properly 
claim  the  title  of  German,  or  English.  It  prevailed 
in  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  England  and  Den- 
mark; and  from  those  countries  it  was  introduced 
into  Italy,  France  and  Spain.  Some  suppose  that 
Saxony  is  the  country  to  which  its  origin  may  be 
traced." 

In  regard  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and 
preaching,  something  must  be  said.  The  multiplica- 
tion of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
settlement  of  Ihe  canon,  together  with  the  ai)point- 
mejj  of  prescribed  readings  in  the  churches,  all  had 
important  relation  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures. 
So,  too,  the  publication  of  the  Vulgate,  or  Latin 
translation  of  the  Bible,  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with 
this  portion  of  the  service;  but  toward  the  latter 
part  of  the  Middle  Ages  reading  in  the  churches 
greatly  declined,  and  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures 
by  the  people  in  their  homes,  which  was  so  earnestly 
urged  by  Chrysostom  and  otliers,  was  practically 
unknown.  It  was  one  of  the  glories  of  the  Reforma- 
tion to  have  placed  the  Bible  back  into  the  hands 
of  the  people.  Preaching  had  various  fortunes.  The 
homily  early  developed  into  the  sermon,  as  we  have 
seen  before.  The  famous  group  of  Greek  preachers 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  with  their  con- 
temporaries, Ambrose  and  Augustine  in  the  West, 
gave  great  impulse  to  preaching,  but  after  these 
there  was  a  notable  decline.  There  were  some  great 
preachers  during  the  Middle  Ages — some  who  at- 
tracted wonderful  crowds.  During  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth    centuries    pi-eachiug    rose    to    a    great 


650  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

height.  The  preaching  orders  of  the  Franciscans 
and  Dominicans  greatly  encouraged  it,  and  some 
great  popular  preachers  arose,  as  Antony  of  Padua, 
Berthold  of  Regensburg,  and  others. 

There  is  not  much  to  say  in  regard  to  the  liturgical 
forms  of  the  Middle  Ages.  They  remained  sub- 
stantially, with  various  alterations  and  additions  in 
detail,  as  Gregory  left  them.  In  the  West  the 
liturgy  was  in  the  Latin  tongue,  and  as  the  people 
lost  that  language  they  ceased  to  take  any  active 
part  in  the  worship  of  the  church,  being  rather 
spectators  than  participants. 

In  music,  there  was  great  and  wonderful  develop- 
ment. It  would  take  us  too  long  to  describe  the 
growth  of  those  mangnificent  hymns  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  which  remain  the  admiration  of  poets  and 
Christians  through  all  times.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  things  in  literature  that  when  the  Latin 
came  to  be  virtually  a  dead  language,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Christian  religion,  Latin  poetry,  of 
a  new  and  different  sort  from  that  which  had  existed 
in  the  classical  periods  blossomed  out  with  a  rich- 
ness and  fulness  equally  surprising  and  admirable. 
Some  of  the  noblest  hymns  ever  written  were  the 
productions  of  these  mediaeval  Latin  poets.  What 
can  compare  with  the  Dies  Irae  in  stately  grandeur 
and  tremendous  impressiveness?  What  appeals  to 
the  poetic  sensibility  with  tenderer  grace  than  the 
Stahat  Mater?  What  arouses  the  martial  spirit  in 
the  church  militant  like  the  Yexilla  Regis,  or  claims 
the  abiding  presence  of  God  with  such  poetic  fervor 
as  the  Veni,  Creator  Spiritus? 

The  organ  seems  to  have  come  into  use,  between 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  651 

the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries.  It  grew  out  of  the 
so-called  pipe  of  Pan,  consisting  of  pipes  or  tubes 
of  different  lengths,  into  which  the  performer  blew 
from  the  top,  but  was  gradually  developed  into  an 
instrument  of  church  music.  At  first  the  instru- 
ments were  very  cumbrous  and  hard  to  manage. 
The  first  one  known  in  the  West  is  said  to  have  been 
sent  by  the  emperor  of  Constantinople  as  a  gift  to 
Pepin,  the  father  of  Charlemagne,  about  the  middle 
of  the  eighth  century.  Bells  and  chimes  came  in 
later.  The  origin  of  these  is  somewhat  uncertain, 
but  the  bell  which  called  the  mediaeval  monk  to  his 
devotions  figures  largely  in  the  romance  and  poetry  of 
that  strange  time.  In  all  this  there  was  evil  as  well 
as  good.  Bells  became  connected  in  some  way  with 
superstitions.  They  were  blessed,  and  venerated  in 
various  ways. 

As  to  rites  and  ceremonies,  there  was  a  vast 
growth.  The  two  original  ordinances  were  expanded 
into  the  seven  sacraments  of  the  Roman  Church, 
with  all  the  ritual  accompanying  their  solemniza- 
tion. The  mass  and  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion  gave  a  mystical  and  awful  aspect  to  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  accessories  of 
worship  became  more  and  more  elaborate.  There 
were  robes,  banners,  images,  processions,  postures, 
genuflexions,  and  all  such  things  as  added  their 
various  kinds  and  degrees  of  impressiveness  to  the 
ceremonies  of  the  church. 

The  festivals,  as  we  saw  in  the  former  age,  became 
fixed,  and  around  each  of  the  three  principal  ones 
there  was  a  cluster  of  minor  feasts.  To  these, 
numerous  days  were  added,  and  the  so-called  "Chris- 


652  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

tion  year,"  with  all  its  Sundays  and  many  other  days 
set  apart  for  certain  observances,  became  settled.  A 
very  important  addition  was  the  adoption  of  saints' 
days,  which  began  in  the  earlier  period,  but  was 
considerably  extended  during  this,  wherein  parti- 
cular saints  were  especially  honored,  and  an  interest 
in  their  petitions  was  sought,  leading  to  saint  wor- 
ship. All  these  feasts  and  fasts  had  of  course  more 
or  less  of  elaborate  ritual,  and  have  been  a  great 
element  in  the  stated  worship  of  the  Catholic  and 
ritualistic  churches  ever  since  those  days. 

In  regard  to  some  perversions  and  superstitions 
it  is  necessary  to  speak.  We  may  trace  the  origins 
and  a  fair  state  of  development  in  this  direction  far 
back  into  the  former  ages ;  but  as  they  come  to  their 
full  growth  in  this  period  and  up  to  the  Reforma- 
tion, it  is  convenient  to  discuss  them  here.  There 
were  many  of  these.  We  may  note  especially  the  fol- 
lowing: (a)  The  saving  efficacy  of  the  ordinances. 
This  error  began  much  earlier,  but  reached  its  full 
growth  in  the  Middle  Ages  when  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation  was  developed  and  fastened  upon 
the  belief  of  Roman  Catholics,  (b)  The  worship  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  which  also  began  in  a  much  earlier 
time,  together  with  that  of  the  saints  and  martyrs, 
grew  into  fixed  and  final  form  in  the  Roman  church 
during  this  period,  (c)  Besides  these  there  was 
the  veneration  of  images.  This  caused  a  great 
commotion  in  the  Eastern  Church.  Some  of 
the  Greek  emperors,  especially  Leo  the  Isaurian, 
were  much  opposed  to  the  worship  of  images. 
The  people  rose  in  mobs  and  broke  the  images, 
whence    is    derived    the    word    "iconoclast,"   that 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  653 

is,  iiiia^e  breaker.  In  the  West,  however,  the 
worshi])  of  iiuajjes  caused  little  trouble,  it  grew 
gradually  but  surely.  Along  with  that  there  was 
the  veneration  of  relies  and  shrines,  and  going 
upon  pilgrimages  to  sacred  places.  Many  went  to 
Palestine,  and  from  that  grew  the  great  movement 
of  the  Crusades,  (d)  A  word  nnist  be  said  also  in 
regard  to  fasts,  penances  and  various  self-imposed 
works,  with  such  horrors  as  flagellation  (whipi)ing) 
which  arose  during  this  period,  (e)  The  early  prac- 
tice of  praying  for  the  dead  became  greatly  de- 
veloped, and  was  subject  to  fearful  abuses  in  the 
masses  which  were  celebrated  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
In  all  these  things  what  a  marked  and  fearful  de- 
parture do  we  find  from  the  beauty,  simplicity, 
power  and  truth  of  the  earliest  Christian  worship! 

It  is  time  for  us  now  to  consider  Christian  wor- 
ship in  modern  times,  that  is,  from  the  Reforma- 
tion in  1517  on  until  the  present  day.  It  was  in- 
evitable that  the  Reformation,  which  brought  such 
great  changes  in  the  polity  and  doctrines  of  the 
churches,  should  also  afifect  profoundly  their  wor- 
ship, for  these  things  go  together.  The  history  of 
Christian  worship  since  the  Reformation  naturally 
falls  into  three  separate  divisions,  relating  to  the 
ancient  churches,  the  Protestant  liturgical  churches, 
and  the  churches  without  liturgies. 

The  ancient  churches  need  not  concern  us  long, 
for  as  regards  their  worship  they  are  both  essentially 
medijpval.  and  no  changes  of  note  have  been  made 
in  the  Roman  liturgy  since  the  Council  of  Trent. 
These  refer  to  matters  of  detail,  which  it  would  be 
useless  and  to  a  Protestant  uninteresting  to  follow 


654  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

out.  The  Greek  Church  differs  from  the  Roman  less 
in  matters  of  worship  than  in  those  of  doctrine  and 
polity.  It  has  an  elaborate  ritual  and  a  vast  amount 
of  ceremony.  The  Roman  Church  preserves  as  a 
thing  holy  and  inviolate  the  traditional  worship, 
retaining  even  yet  the  Latin  ritual,  together  with  all 
the  developments  and  perversions  of  the  past.  For 
the  use  of  the  people  in  this  country  the  Missal  has 
been  translated  into  English,  but  the  Latin  is  kept 
in  parallel  columns.  The  priests,  of  course,  read  the 
Latin,  and  the  people  follow  along  as  well  as  they 
may  with  their  eyes  on  both.  There  are  a  great 
many  ceremonials,  and  the  pomps  and  processions 
are  numerous  and  imposing. 

Taking  up  the  liturgical  Protestant  churches,  we 
find  a  number  of  interesting  matters  in  regard  to 
worship.  In  both  Germany  and  England  the  state 
churches  held  on  to  many  of  the  old  religious  cus- 
toms, though  they  were  greatly  modified.  The 
liturgy  was  retained  in  both  these  churches,  but 
translated  into  the  vernacular  and  greatly  simpli- 
fied. The  Lutheran  liturgy  is  less  elaborate  than 
the  English.  It  must  have  been  a  great  delight  to 
the  people  of  Germany,  not  willing  to  break  entirely 
with  the  traditions  of  the  past,  and  yet  yearning  for 
more  liberty  in  worship,  to  have  received  the  best 
results  of  the  ancient  liturgical  service  in  their  own 
tongue.  This  was  true  also  of  the  English  people. 
The  liturgy  of  the  English  Church  retained  more  of 
the  Roman  cast  than  did  the  Lutheran.  It  is  even 
yet,  though  much  shortened  and  changed  in  the 
course  of  years,  especially  here  in  America,  an 
elaborately  striking,  solemn  and  beautiful  service. 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH. 


655 


The  language  of  the  Prayer  Book,  in  the  English  of 
the  Elizabethan  era,  is  itself  noble  and  impressive. 
The  prayers  are  very  solemn  and  devout.  To  one 
who  really  means  it,  the  Anglican  is  undoubtedly  a 
ver}'  impressive  and  solemn  mode  of  worshiping 
God.  The  Presbyterian  Churches  have  at  various 
times  had  a  liturgj-,  though  very  much  simpler  than 
either  the  Lutheran  or  Anglican.  Calvin  had  a  ser- 
vice book  in  Geneva.  And  Knox  drew  up  one  for 
Scotland,  but  the  Scotch  did  not  fancy  a  ritual— 
the  book  did  not  suit  them.  The  German  Reformed 
Churches  and  the  Huguenots  in  France  also  had  a 
simple  prescribed  service. 

In  regard  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and 
preaching,  the  appointed  lessons  for  each  Sunday, 
with  selections  from  the  Psalms,  have  heen  retained 
in  the  liturgical  churches.  xVmong  the  Lutherans 
preaching  occupies  a  very  large  place,  and  is  con- 
sidered to  be  a  very  important  part  of  the  service. 
In  the  Episcopal  Churches,  especially  where  high 
church  opinion  prevails,  the  sermon  13  often 
reckoned  a  very  inferior  part  of  the  service,  and  is 
treated  accordingly.  Yet  many  of  the  greatest 
preachers  of  all  time  have  been  connected  with  the 
Church  of  England;  so  that  preaching  has  not  been 
wholly  neglected  even  by  those  who  lay  greater 
stress  upon  the  service.  It  is  very  commonly  the 
habit,  particularly  with  the  German  preachers,  to 
select  their  texts  from  the  portion  of  Scripture  as- 
signed for  the  day. 

In  regard  to  music,  the  liturgical  Protestant 
churches  have  made  great  contributions  to  sacred 
«ong,  both  in  the  way  of  poetry  and  of  music.    The 


656  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

Christian  world  is  forever  indebted  to  the  Lutheran 
and  English  churches  for  glorious  hymns  and  tunes. 
Luther,  as  is  well  known,  was  a  great  singer  and 
also  a  writer  of  hymns.  In  the  Reformation  the 
people  also  found  a  voice,  and  the  hymmology  of 
Christianity  was  permanently  enriched  and  power- 
fully stimulated  by  the  movement.  The  use  of  the 
organ  was  retained  without  scruple,  and  the  in- 
struments have  been  greatly  improved  within  the 
last  two  or  three  centuries.  In  the  English  church, 
also  the  service  of  song  with  the  organ  has  occupied 
a  large  place. 

The  "Christian  j^ear"  has  been  retained  in  both 
the  Lutheran  and  English  churches,  though  it  -was 
modified  in  its  more  objectionable  features.  It  has 
very  dear  associations  to  persons  brought  up  in  the 
state  churches.  The  holidays,  feasts  and  fasts,  and 
sacred  seasons  have  very  impressive  lessons  to  those 
who  appreciate  them  at  their  true  religious  value. 
To  one  who  is  unaccustomed  to  observe  days  it  seems 
as  if  they  were  mere  formalities,  but  doubtless  to 
many  a  devout  soul  within  the  liturgical  churches 
the  sacred  seasons  are  times  of  real  worship  and  ap- 
proach to  God. 

Lastly,  many  of  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
ancient  times  were  retained,  but  most  of  the  more 
objectionable  errors  of  Rome  were  discarded;  still 
to  one  who  prefers  a  simpler  mode  of  worship  there 
seems  to  be  quite  enough  ceremony  in  the  worship  of 
the  Lutheran  and  Anglican  bodies  to-day. 

We  may  now  consider  the  churches  without 
liturgy  in  the  modern  times.  The  Presbyterians  for 
the  most  part  rejected  the  liturgy;  so  did  the  Ana- 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  657 

baptists,  likewise  the  Baptists,  the  Methodists,  the 
Congregationali^ts,  and  many  of  the  smaller  sects. 
These  have  endeavored  to  get  back  of  all  traditional 
dovplopments,  even  those  of  the  first  centuries,  to 
the  simple,  apostolical  New  Testament  worship.  Of 
course,  t]iey  have  not  done  so  with  perfect  success, 
but  in  principle,  and  to  a  good  degree  in  ])ractice, 
the  non-liturgical  churches  have  done  much  in  that 
direction.  Yet  there  is  great  room  for  improvement. 
Following  the  same  line  of  thought  as  under  the 
previous  discussion,  we  observe  concerning  the 
I)ra3'ers  that  these  are  without  set  written  forms, 
but  none  the  less  are  they  often  formal,  and  what 
professes  to  be  extempore  prayer  is  often  a  medley 
or  vain  repetitions  and  traditional  modes  of  expres- 
sion. The  prayers  in  our  churches  are  intended  to 
be  free,  spontaneous  and  devout.  Would  that  they 
came  more  nearly  realizing  this  excellent  purpose! 

In  regard  to  the  reading  of  the  Scripture,  no  regu- 
lar lessons  are  appointed.  The  selection  is  usually 
left  to  the  preacher;  and  unhappily  oftentimes  this 
part  of  the  service  is  spoiled  by  inapt  selections  on 
the  preacher's  part,  by  his  wretched  reading,  and 
the  consequent  culpable  inattention  on  the  part  of 
the  people.  Nowhere  is  a  reform  more  imperatively 
demanded  in  our  worship  than  in  the  impressiveness 
and  spirituality  which  should  mark  the  reading 
of  God's  holy  word. 

As  respects  preaching,  the  sermon  was  restored 
by  the  lieformers  to  its  rightful  place  in  the  wor- 
ship, but  it  easily  happened  that  the  reform  went 
too  far,  and  the  sermon  has  in  many  churches  come 
to  be  the  main  thing  in  the  whole  service.     It  has. 


658  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH 

come  to  be  the  habit  of  many  persons  to  speak  of 
the  worship,  or  service  of  God's  house,  as  ''preach- 
ing," as  if  there  was  nothing  else, — and  too  often, 
it  must  sadly  be  admitted,  there  is  little  else.  There 
is  need  of  thoughtful  effort  to  bring  to  a  suitable 
and  proportionate  place  in  the  regard  of  the  people 
the  whole  service  of  the  house  of  God.  , 

The  subject  of  sacred  song  has  had  a  varied  ex. 
perience  in  the  non-liturgical  churches.  Sometimes 
it  has  been  wholly  rejected,  and  many  Baptist 
churches  in  the  earlier  days  refused  to  sing,  and 
some  even  divided  into  singing  and  non-singing. 
After  awhile  the  Psalms  were  allowed,  and  then 
hymns,  and  gradually  throughout  almost  all 
churches  hymns  came  to  be  freely  sung.  Instru- 
mental music  has  likewise  had  a  strange  history. 
Sometimes  the  instrument  has  been  fought  as  if  it 
were  the  device  of  the  devil;  and  sometimes  it  has 
been  allowed.  In  some  churches  the  music  has  been 
too  much  thought  of  to  the  exclusion  of  better 
things;  in  others  it  has  been  shamefully  neglected. 
Choirs  have  been  retained  in  some  churches,  and  in 
some  churches  they,  too,  have  been  rejected.  In 
truth,  all  .sorts  of  things  have  happened  to  church 
music.  There  has  not  been  any  uniformity  of  prac- 
tice or  sentiment  among  the  various  denominations 
of  Christians  in  modern  times. 

Finally,  in  regard  to  ceremonies  in  the  churches 
that  use  no  liturgies,  these  have  been  reduced  to  the 
New  Testament  minimum,  that  is,  the  observance  of 
the  two  scriptural  ordinances.  These  are  usually 
celebrated  in  connection  with  the  other  services,  and 
in  a  very  simple  manner.    Sometimes  they  have  been 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH.  659 

made  the  main  features  of  special  services,  and  other 
elements  of  worsliij)  have  been  adapted  to  them.  It 
is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  without  going  to  any- 
thing that  savors  of  ritualism,  the  two  ordinances 
should  be  celebrated  with  more  of  worship,  more  of 
solemnity,  more  of  decorum. 


660  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

OUTLINE  OF  CHAPTER  VII. 

WORSHIP  IN   MODERN  CHURCH  LIFE. 

I.  Neglect. 

1.  Causes. 

(1)  Pressure  of  other  interests. 

(2)  Decline  of  spirituality. 

2.  Remedies. 

(1)  Mistaken. 

(2)  Sound. 

II.  Faults. 

1.  In  estimate. 

(1)  Of  its  true  value  and  meaning. 

(2)  Of  its  externals. 

(3)  As  compared  with  other  things. 

2.  In  appliances. 

(1)  Church  buildings. 

(2)  Other  appointments. 

3.  In  conduct.     On  part  of 

(1)  Church. 

(2)  Pastor. 

(3)  Choir. 

III.  Value. 

1.  Toward  God. 

2.  For  the  worshiper. 

3.  To  the  unsaved. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

WORSHIP  OP  THE  CHURCHES. 
ITS   PLACE   IN    MODERN   CHURCH   LIFE. 

Comparisons  are  not  always  safe,  and  it  would 
not  be  wise  to  aflfirm  that  as  compared  with  former 
times  our  days  show  either  great  im]U'ovement  or 
great  decline  in  the  matter  of  worship.  But  it  is  at 
least  safe  to  say  that  there  never  has  been,  and  is 
not  now  as  great  a  realization  of  the  value  and  power 
of  worship  in  church  life  as  there  should  be.  It  is 
right,  therefore,  that  we  earnestly  give  some  atten- 
tion to  this  supremely  important  subject.  We  shall 
take  some  account  of  the  neglect  of  worship,  of  some 
faults  in  its  conduct,  and  of  its  true  value,  as  these 
topics  apply  to  the  churches  of  our  own  times. 

Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  causes,  we  cannot 
mistake  the  fact  that  in  our  modern  church  life 
there  is  great  neglect  of  worship.  It  is  not  only 
true  that  the  people  generally  do  not  largely  attend, 
but  the  most  serious  and  sad  thing  is  that  professing 
Christians  are  themsolv^es  conspicuously  at  fault  in 
this  regard,  especially  in  respect  to  the  evening  ser- 
vice in  the  cities. 

One  of  the  principal  causes,  no  doubt,  for  this 
neglect  is  the  pressure  of  many  other  claims  and  in- 
terests in  the  stress  and  strain  of  modern  business 
and  social  life.     The  pursuit  of  business  and  the 

6fil 


662  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

distractions  of  social  pleasures  in  our  time  are 
simply  appalling.  The  demand  upon  attention,  upon 
nerve  force,  upon  every  resource  for  effort  is  over- 
whelming. Attention  and  strength  are  drawn  away 
and  dissipated  from  religious  pursuits,  and  par- 
ticularly from  public  worship.  Along  with  this  we 
must  sadly  note  the  slackening  of  interest  in  the 
realities  of  the  Christian  faith.  Skepticism,  both 
as  to  the  historic  foundations  and  as  to  the  experi- 
mental verities  of  Christianity,  is  deeply  and 
ruinously  at  work  in  many  minds  that  have  not 
definitely  broken  with  these  things,  and  do  not  wish 
to  do  it.  But  they  are  left  with  little  real  desire  for 
spiritual  things,  and  even  less  of  resolute  efifort  to 
seek  and  maintain  the  devout  attitude  of  a  genuine 
and  profound  faith  in  spiritual  religion. 

Of  remedies  sought  for  the  neglect  of  worship 
there  are  many  and  various,  but  without  going  into 
details  we  may  say  in  general  that  some  are  mis- 
taken and  some  are  sound.  It  is  surely  a  mistake  to 
resort  to  sensational  methods  to  attract  the  people 
— whether  professedly  Christian  or  not.  For  the 
members  of  the  church  to  need  the  attraction  of 
mere  novelty,  and  the  device  of  excitement  to  bring 
them  to  the  house  of  God  for  his  worship,  is  surely 
wrong  in  principle  and  can  only  have  an  unhealthy 
reaction.  Our  young  people  especially  have  been  too 
much  taught  that  unless  the  services  of  the  church 
minister  to  the  craving  for  amusement  they  may  be 
excused  from  attendance.  And  the  people  at  large, 
who  have  a  superabundance  of  theatres  and  shows 
to  supply  the  demand  for  spectacular  and  emotional 
pleasure,  surely  do  not  need  to  find  in  the  worship 


IN    MODERN   CHURCH    I-IFE.  663 

of  God  a  similar  attraction,  A  church  cannot  com- 
pete with  a  theatre  in  that  direction,  and  is  despised 
in  its  failure. 

The  true  remedy  is  to  make  the  worship  what  it 
ought  to  be  as  worship.  It  has  a  place  of  its  own  to 
fill,  a  place  that  nothing  else  can  fill.  It  offers  what 
no  other  institution  can  offer,  and  here  is  the  hiding 
of  its  power.  To  obscure  that  with  unseemly  at- 
tempts to  rival  worldly  amusements  in  attractiveness 
is  one  of  the  most  deplorable  and  ruinous  of  all  mis- 
takes. But  this  does  not  mean  that  worship  cannot 
and  must  not  be  made  attractive — surely  it  must  be 
that.  But  that  by  being  itself!  Let  it  be  real,  up- 
lifting of  heart  and  mind  to  God,  let  it  be  true  guid- 
ance and  help  to  doubtful  and  distressed  souls,  let 
it  be  food  to  hungry  and  cheer  to  aspiring  hearts 
oppressed  with  the  strife  and  care  of  this  world, 
and  longing  sometimes  for  the  better,  let  worship 
be  this  and  all  the  more  than  this  that  it  is  intended 
to  be,  and  there  will  not  be  so  mucli  reason  to  com- 
plain of  its  neglect.  We  are  to  endeavor  to  point  out 
some  helps  in  this  direction  in  what  now  follows. 

We  must  carefully  consider  some  of  the  more  evi- 
dent and  removable  faults  in  our  worship  as  too 
often  conducted  to-day.  The  first  group  of  these  is 
vhat  may  be  called  faults  of  estimate ;  and  the  first 
point  is  rating  worship  too  low. 

Underestimate  of  worship  leads  to  the  inattention 
which  we  often  observe  on  the  part  of  many  who  do 
come  to  church — a  lack  of  serious  and  rex-erent  at- 
tention to  the  worship  of  God.  It  seems  that  various 
other  reasons,  habit,  sociability  or  something  of  the 
kind,    bring   people  to   the   church   rather   than    a 


664  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

sincere  desire  and  purpose  to  worship  God.  This 
inattention  is  exhibited  toward  all  parts  of  the  ser- 
vice, but  more  especially  to  the  reading  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  praj'ers.  Singing  and  preaching  in  a 
measure  compel  attention,  and  even  this  is  bestowed 
as  often  because  of  the  merit  of  the  performance,  as 
because  of  the  spiritual  worship  rendered  to  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  fault  arises  from  an  over- 
estimate of  the  externals  of  worship.  Some  make 
the  mistake  of  thinking  that  careful  attention  to  the 
forms  and. proprieties  of  worship  may  perhaps  be 
worship.  This  is  a  serious  error  and  leads  to 
ritualism.  Elaborate  ceremonies  may  attract  and 
delight  many,  and  they  may  mistake  for  devotion 
their  fondness  for  pageantry.  But  aids  to  devotion, 
however  elaborate,  are  not  devotion,  and  they  often 
become  hindrances  rather  than  helps.  So,  too,  this 
overestimate  leads  to  formalism.  This  is  commonly 
supposed  to  go  hand  in  hand  with  ritualism,  and 
so  it  may;  but  alas,  it  can  ,and  does,  exist  where 
there  is  no  ritual.  We  have  a  current  phrase  about 
''going  through  the  motions"  of  things.  It  is  a  most 
mournful  and  fatal  thing  to  "go  though  the  motions" 
of  worship  without  the  worship.  Of  course  this  finds 
its  extreme  in  the  hierarchical  churches,  but  even 
among  those  where  there  is  no  priest  and  no  ritual, 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  having  regard  to  the  preacher 
and  his  performance  rather  than  to  the  grace  and 
glory  of  God. 

Another  fault  is  to  have  a  wrong  estimate  of  the 
place  and  the  parts  of  worship.  Many  Christians 
have  a  very  inadequate  conception  of  the  place  which 
worship  should  hold  in  comparison  with  the  other 


IN    MODERN    CHURCH    LIFE.  fi65 

elements  of  the  church's  life  and  activity.  The  busi- 
ness, social,  benevolent,  and  even  the  recruiting 
work  of  the  church  range  in  their  conceptions  far 
bej^ond  the  services  of  prayer  and  praise.  To  some, 
no  doubt,  wor.^hip  seems  too  sentimental,  not  prac- 
tical enough  in  this  tremendously  practical  age.  To 
them  the  active  work  of  the  church,  its  outward  evi- 
dences of  life  seem  more  important.  But  there  is 
no  conflict  between  work  and  worship.  It  is  also 
very  common  to  have  wrong  notions  of  the  proper 
relation  which  the  various  parts  of  worship  should 
sustain  to  each  other  and  to  the  whole.  Some  ]yec- 
sons  may  put  emphasis  too  much  on  the  services, 
some  on  the  music,  some  on  the  sermon,  few,  if  any, 
on  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures;  but  all  these  have 
their  proper  relation  to  each  other,  and  to  the  idea 
of  worship  as  a  while. 

A  second  group  of  faults  concerning  worship  is  in 
regard  to  the  provisions  that  are  made  for  it.  It  is 
the  duty  of  the  church  to  provide  suitable  places 
and  appliances  for  the  orderly  performance  of  wor- 
ship; but  here  grievous  mistakes  are  often  made. 
In  regard  to  location,  for  instance,  many  houses  of 
worship  are  situated  in  places  utterly  uncongenial 
to  quiet  and  devotion. 

Worship  has  also  been  much  hindered  and  in- 
jured by  unsuitable  architecture.  There  are  three 
varieties  of  church  buildings  which  ought  to  be 
avoided;  the  cathedral,  the  barn  and  the  club-house. 
Many  magnificent  and  imposing  buildings  are  not 
adapted  to  purposes  of  Christian  worship.  They  are 
splendid  architecture,  triumphant  monuments  to  the 
glory  of  men,  admirable  to  look  upon,  but  poorly 


666  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

appointed  as  places  for  preaching  and  hearing,  for 
singing,  reading  and  praj^er. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  surely  no  need  of  going 
to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  in  escaping  archi- 
tectural excellence,  to  have  buildings  or  ''barns" 
equally  ill-suited  for  worship  without  the  coi> 
responding  advantage  of  architectural  magnifi- 
cence. Of  course  churches  ought  not  to  be  built  for 
the  pride  and  glory  of  man,  but  neither  should  they 
be  so  poor  and  bare  and  unsightly  in  comparison 
with  our  own  houses  as  to  be  an  insult  to  the  King 
of  kings. 

In  undertaking,  however,  to  hit  a  happy  medium 
between  the  stately  and  pretentious  cathedral  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  unsightl}'  and  bare  ''barn"  on  the 
other,  let  us  not  make  the  mistake  of  falling  upon 
the  "club-house"  variety  of  church  buildings.  Some- 
thing is  due  to  the  dignity  of  worship  even  in  the 
matter  of  architecture,  and  the  building  which  does 
not  look  like  anything  particular  in  the  way  of  a 
house,  and  whose  main  purposes  and  associations 
are  suppers  and  fairs,  social  parties  and  cooking, 
sewing  and  the  like,  is  robbed  of  some  of  its  highest 
glories.  Let  the  church,  indeed,  be  a  spiritual  home; 
let  it  be  a  place  where  the  children  of  God  are  made 
welcome  and  comfortable;  but  let  it  not  become  a 
social  draAving-room,  and,  least  of  all,  a  kitchen.  Let 
us  remember  our  sad  and  indignant  Master,  with  his 
scourge  of  small  cords,  in  the  temple. 

Another  trouble  is  in  the  matter  of  appointments. 
Worship  is  sometimes  hindered,  or  even  spoiled  by 
awkward,  not  to  say  wretched,  appointments.  It  is 
amazing  how  much  unnecessary  discomfort  is  al- 


IN    MODERN   CHURCH   LIFE.  667 

lowed  to  discournge  the  worship  in  some  of  our 
churches.  Bad  light,  worse  heating  arrangements, 
and  positively  detestable  \'entilation,  may  be 
ruinous  to  any  real  worship.  There  is  no  need,  or 
sense,  in  being  studiously,  and  persistently,  and 
obstinately  uncomfortable  while  engaged  in  wor- 
shij).  A  tortured  body  is  not  conducive  to  spiri- 
tual worship.  It  was  the  mistake  of  asceticism  to 
think  that  a  hair  shirt,  kneeling  on  pebbles  and 
lacerations  of  the  back  might  help  a  man  to  get  close 
to  God.  Asceticism,  however,  was  a  well-meant 
mistake;  but  stupid  cai-elessness  is  an  unmitigated 
fault. 

Again,  a  frequent  hindrance  is  an  insufficient  sup- 
ply of  song  books  and  other  helps  to  the  service.  A 
bad  instrument — a  wheezing,  discordant,  blatant  or- 
gan, and  other  trials  in  the  conduct  of  music,  can- 
not be  edifying  to  the  average  worshij)er.  And 
further,  the  irapressiveness  of  our  services  is  often 
grievously  mari-ed  by  awkward  arrangements  for 
administering  the  ordinances.  The  solemnity  and 
beauty  of  these  are  greatly  impaired  by  lack  of  the 
proper  furnishings.  In  regard  to  baptism,  it  is 
strange  that  Baptist  churches  of  all  others  should 
be  as  negligent  as  they  often  are  in  ])roviding  a 
baptistery,  suitable  attire  for  the  candidates,  and 
other  matters  which  are  essential  to  the  decent  and 
comely  administration  of  the  ordinance. 

A  third  set  of  faults  is  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of 
worship;  and  these  are  chargeable  mainly  to  three 
parties:  the  church,  the  pastor,  and  the  choir;  and 
responsibility  rests  upon  them  in  the  order  given. 

First  of  all  it  is  the  fault  of  the  church  ;  for  surely 


668  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

it  is  the  indispensable  duty  of  the  church  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  to  see  that  his  worship  is  properly  con- 
ducted. If  the  churches  would  take  an  active  and 
intelligent  interest  in  the  regulation  of  their  own 
services,  things  would  be  very  different  among  us. 
Few  churches,  as  such,  take  any  active  oversight  of 
the  worship.  The  whole  responsibility  is  usually 
left  to  the  pastor,  to  the  persistence  of  old  cus- 
tom, or  to  the  care  of  a  few  interested  individuals. 
Active  interest  among  all,  and  active  management  by 
committees,  on  the  part  of  the  church  itself  would 
greatly  help  the  cause.  Again,  there  is  consequent 
failure  to  regulate  the  details  of  worship.  Most  of 
these  details  are  proper  matters  for  congregational 
action ;  or  at  least  indirectly,  through  its  officers 
and  committees,  should  the  church  see  to  these 
things.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  see  that  the 
decorum  of  the  worship  is  maintained.  It  is  all 
wrong  for  the  aroused,  excited  preacher  to  have  to 
look  out  for  the  behavior  of  the  congregation.  De- 
tails, such  as  the  notices,  the  collections,  and  other 
matters  which  are  not  directly  parts  of  worship  and 
are  often  interruptions  to  it,  should  have  the  care 
and  attention  of  the  church,  so  that  they  may  be 
attended  to  in  the  proper  way  and  not  mar  the 
continuity  and  impressiveness  of  the  service.  Ushers 
should  be  appointed  by  the  church  and  made  to  feel 
the  responsibility  of  the  position.  Many  a  church 
suffers  in  the  power  and  beauty  of  its  service  on  ac- 
count of  the  neglect  of  these  matters  of  detail. 

iS^ext  to  the  church  itself,  and  some  would  even 
say  before  the  church,  the  pastor  is  to  blame  for  an 
improper  conduct  of  worship.     Pastors  have  many 


IN    MODERN   CHURCH   LIFE.  669 

faults  and  shortcomings,  not  the  least  of  which  is 
their  failure  suitably  to  discharge  their  duty  as  the 
conductors  of  the  public  worship  of  God's  people. 
This  comes  from  several  things.  Sometimes  there 
is  lack  of  conviction.  Like  the  people,  and  perhaps 
more  than  the  people,  the  pastor  may  look  upon  the 
sermon  as  the  principal  thing  and  fail  to  have  any 
realization  of  the  importance  of  worship  as  worship. 
Again,  sometimes  the  pastor's  fault  in  this  matter 
may  be  bluntly  charged  to  a  lack  of  sense.  His 
knowledge  of  the  matter  in  hand  may  be  painfully 
little.  Some  men  know  how  to  preach  fairly  well, 
but  are  \-ery  ill-informed  and  unintelligent  in  re- 
gard to  the  other  parts  of  worship.  They  do  not 
know  how  to  read,  that  is,  to  read  well ;  and  as  for 
taking  any  interest  in  the  singing,  that  is  not  to  be 
thought  of.  Sometimos  wherc  the  preacher  has  some 
theoretical  knowledge  of  the  subject,  be  may  be 
Badly  wanting  in  the  practical  intelligence,  tact  and 
skill  that  are  needed  for  the  proper  management  of 
worship.  Trobably,  however,  the  greatest  fault  of 
the  pastor  in  this  connection  is  a  lack  of  purpose. 
Sometimes  a  pastor  may  have  conviction  and  knowl- 
edge in  regard  to  worship,  and  yet  through  mere 
indolence,  or  shrinking  from  responsibility,  or  dread 
of  criticism,  or  something  of  the  sort,  he  lets  things 
go  on  in  their  old  ruts  without  having  a  godly  pur- 
pose and  determination  to  take  hold  of  this  matter 
of  worship  and  impro\ne  it,  so  far  as  in  him  lies. 

We  must  not  fail,  however,  to  take  into  our  cen- 
sures that  other  party  to  the  service  of  the  church, 
the  choir.  Let  it  be  emphatically  observed  that  the 
church  and  pastor  are  both  to  blame  for  the  irregu- 


670  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

larities  and  difficulties  which  befall  them  in  the 
matter  of  the  choir.  It  is  the  dutj'  of  the  church 
and  the  pastor  by  some  means  to  control  the  choir. 
But  the  faults  of  choirs  are  well  known,  and  they 
should  be  properly  guarded  against.  The  funda- 
mental difficulty  is  in  getting  singers  to  realize  that 
they  have  any  spiritual  responsibility  as  to  the  wor- 
ship. This  is  sometimes  charged  to  the  fault  of 
paid  choirs,  but  the  objection  is  superficial.  It  is 
just  as  true  of  voluntary  choirs  as  it  is  of  those 
whose  services  are  remunerated  properly,  and  whose 
time,  therefore,  belongs  to  the  church.  Very  often 
unsuitable  persons,  for  love  of  notoriety,  or  because 
they  think  they  can  sing,  volunteer  to  lead  the  music, 
and  a  sad  failure  they  make  of  it!  Oftentimes  the 
voluntary  choir  is  more  difficult  to  control  than  that 
which  is  paid.  They  come,  or  fail  to  come,  as  they 
feel  like  it,  to  the  practice.  They  feel  themselves 
greatly  injured  if  any  one  makes  a  suggstion  as  to 
the  singing.  And  it  by  no  means  follows  that  they 
will  behave  themselves.  Another  fault  of  the  choir 
is  the  unsuitable  selection  and  rendition  of  the 
music.  Too  often  art  crowds  out  devotion,  and 
some  choirs  have  been  known  to  object  to  congrega- 
tional singing,  preferring  to  select  such  music  as 
only  they  themselves  can  perform.  And  last  but  not 
least,  choirs  are  sometimes  chargeable  and  justly 
so,  with  bad  behavior.  Their  inattention  to  other 
parts  of  the  worship  is  notorious.  The  giggling  and 
whispering  choir  during  prayer,  Scripture  reading 
and  preaching  is  an  abomination.  It  is  the  impera- 
tive duty  of  the  church  to  co-operate  with  the  pastor 
in  kindly,  but  firmly,  finally  and  forever  putting  a 


IN    MODERN   CHURCH   LIFE.  671 

•stop  to  this  kind  of  thing.  All  these  and  other  faults 
would  be  far  on  the  way  to  being  cured  if  there  were 
on  the  part  of  pastors  and  people  a  just  realization 
of  the  real  worth  and  power  of  worship. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  discuss  the  value  of  worship 
in  church  life.  There  are  some  notable  elements  of 
power  in  the  right  conduct  of  worship,  and  they 
demand  of  every  thoughtful  pastor  and  church  mem- 
ber earnest  consideration  and  practical  employment. 

One  of  these  elements  of  power  is  that  true  wor- 
ship is  acceptable  service  to  God.  Do  we  appreciate 
the  significance  of  this  statement,  that  in  worship 
we  do  something  which  pleases  God?  In  fact,  this 
is  the  prime  motive  and  proper  characteristic  of  true 
worship,  and  both  the  ideas  of  service  and  of  accept- 
able service  are  important.  We  must  keep  in  mind 
that  true  worship  is  in  all  its  parts  real  and  direct 
service  to  God.  There  is  little  that  we  sinful  mortals 
can  do  for  God.  Our  activities  are  more  a  privilege 
to  us  than  a  needful  means  with  him.  The  angels 
would  and  could  do  better  service  than  we.  Our 
gifts  and  so-called  sacrifices,  again,  are  more  of  a 
privilege  on  our  part  than  needed  instruments  in 
the  hand  of  God.  The  gold  and  the  silver  are  his, 
and  the  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills.  Our  giving 
does  not  enrich  him,  and  our  Avithholding  does  not 
impoverish  him.  He  permits  our  service  in  activity 
and  in  gifts;  and  so  far  from  regarding  working  for 
God  and  giving  to  God's  cause  as  burdens,  we  ought 
to  look  upon  them  as  high  and  holy  privileges.  God 
does  not  need  these  things  at  our  hands;  but  he  en- 
courages us  to  believe  that  worship  offered  by  de- 
vout hearts  is  actual  service  rendered  to  him.     If 


672  WORK  AND  WORSHIP-  OF  CHURCH, 

we  may  dare  so  to  express  it,  in  worship  we  do  some- 
thing for  God  that  he  cannot  do  for  himself;  and  this 
is  not  true  of  our  works. 

Moreover,  true  spiritual  worship  is  acceptable  to 
God.  It  pleases  him  for  his  people  to  offer  him  the 
sacrifices  of  praise,  and  to  come  to  him  as  One  that 
heareth  prayer.  There  can  be  no  mistake  here. 
We  are  absolutely  certain  of  doing  what  God  likes 
when  we  offer  to  him  sincere  and  spiritual  worship. 
Some  years  ago  a  devout  and  highly  useful  Christian 
physician  had  a  little  patient  who  was  ill  for  a  long 
time  with  typhoid  fever.  The  child's  parents  were 
poor  and  somewhat  uncouth,  and  so  were  unable  to 
render  suitable  nursing.  The  good  doctor  not  only 
attended  the  little  boy,  but  spent  hours  at  a  time 
in  careful  nursing  at  his  bedside.  There  was  no  ques- 
tion of  financial  remuneration,  the  family  was  too 
poor  to  give  that,  and  the  doctor  did  not  expect  it. 
One  day,  in  passing  the  little  cabin  by  the  roadside, 
the  doctor  was  hailed  by  the  boy,  who  expected  him 
to  come  that  way,  and  the  little  fellow  ran  down  the 
hill  with  a  bag  of  half  ripe  apples  in  his  hand,  which 
he  emptied  with  pride  into  the  bottom  of  the  doc- 
tor's buggy.  The  good  old  man,  looking  at  his  com- 
panion, with  his  eyes  full  of  tears,  remarked :  "Grati- 
tude, my  brother,  is  worth  more  than  money."* 
Thus  to  our  heavenly  Father  grateful  worship  may 
be  more  than  all  our  rich  gifts  or  painfuly  active 
deeds. 

*  It  is  a  pleasure  to  pay  this  simple  tribute  to  the  cher- 
ished memory  of  a  good  and  much  loved  man — Dr.  John  S. 
Tompkins,  formerly  of  Hollins,  Va. 


IN    MODERN   CHURCH   LIFE.  67S 

"Say,  shall  we  yield  him,  in  costly  devotion. 

Odors  of  Edom,  and  offerings  divine? 
Gems  of  the  mountain,  and  pearls  of  the  ocean, 

Myrrh  from  the  forest  or  gold  from  the  mine?" 

"Vainly  we  offer  each  ample  oblation. 
Vainly  with  gifts  would  his  favor  secure; 

Richer  by  far  is  the  heart's  adoration, 

Dearer  to  God  are  the  prayers  of  the  poor." 

Again,  we  should  consider  the  power  of  worship 
as  a  help  to  the  worshiper.  It  is  one  of  the  com- 
raonplaees  of  religious  teaching  that  the  services  of 
religion  are  a  means  of  grace  to  him  who  takes  part 
in  them,  but  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  the  full 
power  of  this  thought  is  realized  among  our  people 
generally.  There  are  many  ways  in  which  worship 
brings  a  blessing  upon  him  who  offers  it  in  spirit 
and  in  truth. 

One  is  by  quickening  interest  in  the  church  in  all 
its  concerns.  It  is  very  hard  for  any  man  to  keep  up 
a  real  interest  in  his  church,  if  he  neglects  or  slights 
its  worship.  The  active  members  of  a  church  are 
not  always  devout,  but  the  devout  are  nearly  always 
active,  while  those  who  neglect  worship  are  com- 
monly neither  devout  nor  active. 

Another  way  is  by  strengthening  and  developing 
the  Christian  intelligence.  One  of  the  many  needs 
of  our  complex  church  life  is  a  larger  Christian  in- 
telligence on  the  part  of  the  members.  The  few  who 
take  a  really  intelligent  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the 
church,  and  of  the  denomination,  and  of  the  Chris- 
tain  world  at  large,  are  usually  found  among  the 
true  worshipers.  We  often  think  and  speak  of  wor- 
ship from  the  sentimental  side,  but  it  is  not  all,  or 
only,  feeling.    It  is  a  highly  intellectual  exercise  and 


674  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OP  CHURCH. 

a  great  helper  to  the  noblest  intellectual  life.  All 
the  parts  of  worship  may  be  instrumental  in  pro- 
moting  the  intellectual  life  of  the  people.  Victor 
Hugo  has  somewhere  said,  with  great  force,  that  the 
value  of  prayer  depends  very  much  upon  the  amount 
of  thinking  that  is  put  into  it.  Now,  pious  intel- 
ligence is  a  great  force  in  the  church,  and  needs  all 
the  encouragement  and  development  which  it  can 
have.  A  droning,  monotonous  worship  may  stifle 
rather  than  kindle  intellectual  vigor,  but  a  worship 
that  calls  into  play  the  highest  intellectual  faculties, 
and  at  the  same  time  lifts  the  devotional  soul  to- 
wards God,  will  surely  be  a  blessing  to  him  who 
offers  it. 

But  most  powerfully  does  the  worship  influence 
church  life  in  the  way  of  promoting  spirituality.  This 
is  the  most  important  point  in  the  discussion,  and  is 
at  the  same  time  the  most  obvious.  The  worship  we 
ofl'er  to  God  comes  back  in  twofold  measure  as  a  pro- 
moter of  our  spiritual  life  and  power.  It  is  simply 
impossible  to  overestimate  the  power  of  worship  as 
a  factor  in  maintaining  the  true  spiritual  life  of  the 
church.  We  might  perhaps  form  some  faint  con- 
ception of  its  value  by  imagining  a  state  of  affairs 
where  worship  is  utterly  wanting.  A  church  which 
is  truly  alive  to  its  own  interests,  to  say  nothing 
of  higher  motives,  cannot  afford  to  make  little  of 
worship,  and  it  should  by  all  means  see  that  the  ser- 
vice in  every  part  and  form  shall  minister  to 
spirituality. 

Another  very  striking  and  important  element  in 
the  power  of  worship  is  that  it  may  be,  and  often  is, 
a  means  of  saving  souls.     It  is  common  to  think 


IN    MODERN   CHURCH    LIFE.  675 

solely  of  the  preaching  in  this  connection,  but  un- 
speakably valuable  as  that  is,  we  should  not  regard 
it  as  the  only  means  of  reaching  the  unconverted  in 
the  congregation.  The  prayers,  the  Scripture,  the 
singing,  may  well  be  employed  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  instruments  of  bringing  salvation.  Are  they  com- 
monly offered  to  the  service  of  God  with  this  end 
in  view?  How  differently  would  the  preacher  read 
his  passage  of  Scripture  if  he  would  try  to  think 
while  performing  this  sacred  service  that  thereby 
some  listening  soul  might  be  saved!  How  different 
would  be  the  singing,  both  by  the  choir  and  the  con- 
gregation, if  all  could  be  made  to  realize  that  thus 
immortal  souls  might  be  brought  unto  the  Saviour! 
How  different  would  be  the  tone  of  the  language 
in  prayer,  if  while  we  prayed  we  felt  that  thereby  a 
sinner  might  be  brought  to  the  feet  of  Jesus!  And 
why  not  these  things?  Why  should  not  God  use  the 
other  parts  of  the  service  just  as  well  as  the  preach- 
ing in  regenerating  the  souls  of  men?  It  surely 
ought  to  be  our  business  to  offer  them  to  God  with 
this  end  in  view,  and  thus  the  whole  service  of  God's 
house,  while  primarily  worship  to  him,  may  be  a 
means  of  salvation  to  those  who  look  on.  The 
apostle  Paul  describes  such  a  possibility  in  the  four- 
teenth chapter  of  1  Corinthians  where,  after  rebuk- 
ing some  disorders  in  worship,  he  says  (vv.  24,25)  : 
"But  if  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  unbe- 
lieving or  unlearned,  he  is  reproved  by  all,  he  is 
judged  by  all;  the  secrets  of  his  heart  are  made 
manifest;  and  so  he  will  fall  down  on  his  face  and 
worship  God,  declaring  that  God  is  among  you  in- 
deed." 


676  WORK  AND  WORSHIP  OF  CHURCH. 

As  a  means  of  bringing  the  unsaved  and  indif- 
ferent where  they  can  hear  the  gospel,  a  real  and 
fervent  worship  surpasses  all  other  attractions. 
Sensational  preaching,  highly  artistic  singing, 
*'catchy"  advertising,  and  sundry  other  devices  have 
been  used  for  far  more  than  they  are  worth  to  draw 
the  multitude.  Is  not  the  drawing  power  of  a  highly 
devotional  worship  worth  trying?  Where  there  is 
true  warmth  of  piety,  a  sound  and  sensible  worship, 
a  true  spiritual  life,  people  will  go.  Kindle  a  fire 
and  the  cold  will  come  to  it.  Make  it  bright  within 
doors,  make  the  welcome  sincere,  and  the  outcasts 
will  come  in  to  be  fed  and  blessed.  The  lightminded 
crowd  is  easily  drawn  by  claptrap,  and  quickly  dis- 
solves when  the  sensation  is  over.  But  a  more 
•serious  and  a  more  steady  class  of  people  will  be 
drawn,  held  and  helped  by  a  live  worship.  If  our 
churches  and  preachers  would  adopt  this  means  of 
attraction  and  give  it  a  faithful  trial,  with  only  a 
moderate  use  of  other  means,  there  would  be  a  great 
and  blessed  change  for  the  better  in  the  attendance 
upon  worship. 

It  thus  appears  for  many  reasons  and  from  many 
points  of  view  that  worship  has  a  place  and  a  power 
in  our  church  life,  second  to  nothing  else  in  all  the 
range  of  churchly  activity,  and  for  all  these  reasons 
it  is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  new  interest  should 
be  awakened  in  all  our  churches  in  this  matter  of 
rendering  to  God  sincere  and  spiritual  worship. 


CONCLUSION. 


CONCLUSION. 


677 


In  closing  this  study  of  the  polity,  ordinance.^, 
work  and  worship  of  the  ohnrchos  of  our  Lord,  it 
is  desirable  to  consider  afresh  the  significance  of 
the  local  churcli.  It  is  a  body  of  believers  in  Christ, 
baptized  into  his  name,  and  consecrated  to  his  ser- 
vice; independent  of  earthly  authority,  but  closely 
related  with  others  of  like  mind  in  promoting  the 
great  purposes  of  God  in  this  world.  Each  local  as- 
sembly of  God's  people  is  "the  church  of  tlie  living 
God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  As  such 
it  is  in  duty  bound  to  comprehend  the  divine  revela- 
tion, and  to  hold  forth  through  darkness  and  trial, 
through  weariness  and  even  persecution,  the  sacred 
light  of  God's  blessed  gospel.  The  church  must  obey 
the  commands  of  its  Lord  and  Master,  and  keep  in 
their  sweet  .simplicity  and  in  their  momentous  im- 
port the  sacred  rites  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  church  by  itself  and  in  co-operation 
with  others  must  work  for  the  improvement  and  for 
the  eternal  salvation  of  mankind.  It  must  labor  to 
make  this  world  better,  and  to  make  heaven  sure, 
for  all  whom  it  can  reach.  The  church,  in  its 
orderly  assemblies  week  by  week,  or  oftener  if  oc- 
casion demands,  must  lift  up  pure  worship  toward 
the  true  and  living  God,  even  the  sacrifice  of  praise 
and  thanksgiving.  How  noble  a  mission  is  that  of 
each  separate  church  of  our  Lord  and  Master !  In 
view  of  its  responsibilities  and  of  its  glorious  privi- 
leges, no  true  church  of  our  Lord,  however  obscure 


678  CONCLUSION. 

and  feeble  it  may  be,  can  be  an  insignificant  thing. 
Whether  located  in  the  crowded  city,  at  the  center3 
of  busy  life,  or  in  the  straggling  suburbs;  whether 
planted  in  the  midst  of  some  populous  and  pros- 
perous country  district,  or  in  some  far  away  secluded 
place,  a  true  church  is  still  *'the  church  of  the  living 
God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  It  can 
reach  the  throne  of  grace  with  its  prayers.  It  can 
girdle  the  world  with  its  benevolence.  It  can  re- 
member the  Lord  in  his  ordinances.  It  can  main- 
tain inviolate  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  unto 
the  saints.  How  responsible  a  position,  how  holy 
a  privilege  to  be  the  pastor  and  guide  of  a  flock  of 
Christ!  Let  every  man  who  desireth  the  office  of  a 
bishop  remember  that  he  desireth  a  good  work ;  and 
may  the  Spirit  of  God  rest  upon  him  and  guide  him 
in  his  labors  I    Amen. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


[A  complete  bibliojiTaphy  of  this  subject  would 
itself  fill  volumes.  The  followino-  list  does  uot  in- 
clude all  the  books  known  to  the  antliov.  nor  even 
all  that  have  been  actually  used  in  the  i)i-o]>aration 
of  the  work;  but  it  is  hoped  it  will  be  found  suffi- 
ciently full  to  indicate  the  authorities  which  have 
been  chiefly  employed,  and  to  guide  students  who 
may  wish  to  pursue  the  subject  further.] 

I.    GENERAL  WORKS. 

1.  History. — Tu  general  Church  History  the  works 
of  Neander,  Guericke,  (lieseler,  Kurtz,  Schaflf,  New- 
man. The  American  Church  History  series  on  the 
several  denominations.  Of  Baptist  Histories  those 
by  Crosby,  Benedict,  Cramp,  Armitage,  Jarrell,  New- 
man, Yedder. 

2.  Archaeoi.oov  and  Early  Christian  History. — 
The  Church  Fathers  in  various  editions,  especially 
the  translations  in  the  Christian  Literature  series: 
Hastings,  Bihlc  Dictionary  (the  appro])riate  arti- 
cles) ;  Smith  and  Cheetham,  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Antiquities;  Bingham,  Antiquities;  Ooleman,  Anti- 
quities, and  Apostolical  and  Pritnitive  Church:  Rid- 
dle, Antiquities;  Neander,  Planting  and  Training  of 
the  Christian  Church;  Dollinger,  First  Age  of  the 
Church;  McGitfert,  The  Apostolic  Age;  Stanley, 
Christian  Institutions ;  Allen,  Christian  Institutions. 

3.  Theology. — Sciiaff,    Creeds    of    Christendom; 

679 


680  Bir.LIOGRAPHY. 

works  on  Svsteinatie  Tlieology  by  Strong',  Johnson 
(Baptist)  ;  Calvin  (Lustitiites) ,  Hodge,  Sliedd  (Pres- 
byterian) ;  Watson,  Summers  (Methodist)  ;  Fair- 
brain  (Congregationalist,  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern 
Thcolof/i/)  ;  Knapp,  Kranth  (Lutheran)  ;  Moehler 
{i->ijitihoIism) ,  Gibbons  {Faith  of  Our  Fathers — both 
Catholic). 

II.     CHURCH  POLITY. 

1.  Critical  and  General.- — Hort,  The  Christian 
Ecclesia;  Lightfoot,  note  on  The  Christian  Ministry 
in  his  Contmentary  on  Philippians ;  Hatch,  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Early  Christian  Churches:  Whitley, 
Church,  Ministry  and  Sacraments  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment;  Lindsay,  The  Church  and  the  Ministry  in  the 
Early  Centuries. 

2.  Denominational. —  (a)  Baptist.  Carson,  Rea- 
sons for  Separating  from  the  Synod  of  Ulster; 
Curtis,  Progress  of  Baptist  Principles;  Wayland, 
Principles  and  Practices  of  the  Baptists;  Bagg, 
Church  Order;  Harvey,  The  Church;  Hovey,  Re- 
ligion and  the  State;  Hiscox,  New  Directory  for 
Baptist  Churches;  Ripley,  Church  Polity;  Marsh, 
The  New  Testament  Church;  Boardman,  Ecclesia; 
Pendleton,  Church  Manual;  Venable,  Baptist  Lay- 
man's Handbook;  Rothwell,  Denominational  Self- 
Examination. 

(b)  Congregational.  Owen,  Church  Government ; 
Wardlaw,  Congregational  Independency ;  Davidson, 
Ecclesiastical  Polity  of  the  Neiv  Testament;  Ladd, 
Priticiples  of  Church  Polity;  Dexter,  Congrega- 
tionalism. 

(c)  Preshyterian.      Smyth,   Presbytery   and  Pre- 


p.ip.LioonAriiv.  081 

lacy;  Hodjje,  Discussions  in  Church  Polity;  ^Morris, 
Ecclesioloyy ;  ^liller,  Ruling  Elders. 

(d)  Methodist.  I*orter,  Compendium  of  Meth- 
odism; Abbey,  Ecclesiastical  Constitutions. 

(e)  Episcopal.  Hooker.  Ecclesiastical  Polity; 
Stilling-fle^t,  Irenicum;  Whately,  The  Kingdo)ii  of 
Christ;  Jacob,  Ecclesiastical  Polity;  I'aliiier, 
Treatise  on  the  Church;  Gore,  The  Church  and  its 
Ministry. 

(f)  Catholic.  Dollinger,  The  Church  and  the 
Churches;  Murphy,  The  Chair  of  Peter;  Kenrick, 
The  Primacy  of  the  Pope. 

(g)  Greelv  Church.  Stanley,  Lectures  on  the 
Eastern  Church;  ^Inravieff,  The  Russian  Church. 

III.    THE  ORDINAXrES. 

Many  of  the  g^eneral  authorities  above  given. 

1.  Baptism. — (Larson,  Baptism;  Conaut,  Meaning 
and  Use  of  Baptizein;  Ford,  Studies  in  Baptism; 
Cole,  Archaeology  of  Baptism  ;  Cathcart,  Baptism  of 
the  Ages;  Rurrage,  Act  of  Baptism ;  Christian,  Im- 
mersion; ^[('Lendon,  Baptism  in  the  Bible;  Robin- 
son, History  of  Baptism;  Ingham,  Hand-hook  of 
Bajttisni ;  Rosser,  Baptism;  Fairfield,  Letters  on 
Baptism;  Dale,  Classic,  Judaic,  Johannic.  Christie 
Baptism;  Chrystal,  Modes  of  Baptism;  Wall.  His- 
tory of  Infant  Jhiptism  with  Gale's  Reflcitions ; 
Newman,  History  of  Antipaedohaptism ;  Ingham, 
Suhjects  of  Baptism  ;  Forrester,  The  Baptist  Posi- 
tion ;  \N'ilkinson,  The  Baptist  Principle;  Curtis, 
Progress  of  Baptist  Principles ;  Howell,  Erils  of 
Infant  Baptism ;  Kirtley.  Design  of  Baptism; 
Tucker,  Position  of  Baptisn)   in  the  Christian  Sys- 


682  BIBLIOGHAPHY. 

tern;  Hovey,  Baptism  as  Related  to  Regeneration 
and  Forgiveness  (appendix  to  commentary  on 
John)  ;  Water-land,  Works  (discussion  of  Titns  3:5)  ; 
Campbell,  Dehate  ivith  Rice,  and  Works;  Jeter, 
Camptyellism  Examined;  Lard,  Repli/  to  Jeter; 
Wilkes,  Designs  of  Baptism. 

2.  The  Lord's  Supper. — Works  on  History  and 
Theology  before  mentioned;  works  on  Baptist  prin- 
ciples above  given.  Hovey,  The  Holy  l^upper  in 
Scripture  and  History;  Christian,-  Close  Com- 
munion. 

lY.    WOKK  AND  WORSHIP. 

1.  Work. — Morris,  Ecclesiology ;  Stall,  Methods 
of  Church  Work;  Mead,  Modern  Methods  of  Church 
Work;  Judson,  The  Institutional  Church;  Bruce, 
The  Kingdom  of  God;  Westcott,  Social  Aspects  of 
Christianity ;  Ely,  Social  Aspects  of  Christianity; 
Lorimer,  Christianity  and  the  Social  State;  Com- 
mons, Social  Reforms  and  the  Church;  Abbott, 
Christianity  and  Social  Prohlcms;  Hyde,  Outlines 
of  Social  Theology;  Strong,  Our  Country,  The  New 
Era ;  many  similar  works  dealing  with  the  relation 
of  the  churches  to  social  and  missionary  movements 
and  problems. 

2.  Worship. — On  the  historical  side  the  general 
works  on  History  and  Archaeology;  on  the  practical 
side  many  works  on  Pastoral  Theology.  Pattison, 
Puhlic  Worship;  Pratt,  Musical  Ministries  in  the 
Church;  Dickinson,  History  of  Music  in  the  Western 
Church ;  Breed,  History  and  Use  of  Hymns  and 
Hymn  Tunes;  many  similar  works  on  Music  and 
Hvmnologv. 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURES. 


[Note.— Only  Passages  discussed  in  the  text  are  given,  not  those  merely 
referred  to.] 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Gen.  4:i6 

Neh.  8:- 

Jer.    31:.31-34. 


PAGE. 

....619 
....626 
....491 


Mt. 


Mk. 


PAGE 


Ac 


Ac. 


NEW  TESTAMENT. 

3:6    335,399 

3:13-15 284ff 

16:18 50 

18:15-17 561 

18:17  43.  45,185 

Is  :13-15 447 

20:28 71 

25:34-40 605 

26:26-9 487,491 

28:19 285,362,406 

1:9 301 

7:3,4 302,  334,a50 

16:16 407 

Lu.  11:37,38 302 

Jno.    3 :6 464,  471 

3:22 401 

3:H3 .301 

4:1,2 362,402 

6:48-58 492f 

10:11 - 87 

2 :38,39 407,  448f ,  465 

2:41 302,  351,402 

2:42,46 494 

5:11 40 

6:1-6 95,6u2 

7:38 38 

8:1 40 

8:12,13 402f 

8:36-39 302,40; 

8.38 364 

9:10-18 365 

9:18 403 

9:26 57 

9:31 47 

10:44-48 365,403 

11:16 400 

11:26 41 

13:24 401 

14:23  59 

15:— ....- 61 

15:41         42 

16:14,15 403,  442ff 

16:33,34 303,  404,442ff 

18:8 404 

18:22 41 

19:1-7 - 363 

19:4 401 

19:5 404 

19:32  38 

20:7 494f 


20: 
20: 
22:1 
27: 


17 41.85 

28 50,85,87 

16 485 

35 493 

Ro.    6  :l-4.  .334,  335f  387,  338,  354,  407 

1 67,95 

42 


16; 

16 

16 

ICor.    1 

1 

7 

10 
10 


23 41,48 

13-17 365 

14-16 404,442fl 

12-14 449 

16,17 485,495 

32 49 


11:2 

11:17-34 

11:23 

274 

496ff 

487 

11:24 

489 

12:28    

16:15 

46,81 

405 

2  Cor. 

16:19... 
8:16-23 

42 

603 

8-23 

81 

Gal. 

6:1-2 

564 

6:6 

92 

Eph. 

4:11 

86 

5:26 

465 

6:1..     .   . 

450 

Col. 

1:25 

71 

1  Tim 

2:11,12 

2:12 

4:17 

3:5 

338,398,441 

408,  467 

90 

43 

3:11 

95 

3:15 

46 

5;1 

84 

2  Tim 

5:3-16 

5:17,18 

1:6 

603 

89,92 

....  91 

Ti. 

Phlle 
Heb. 

Jas. 
IPe. 

8  Jno. 

1 :5 

59, 90 

1:5-7 

88 

8 :4-6     .... 

■  ..  ..               571f 

3:5  

...                  466 

1,2 

42,  90 

2-19 

39 

12:23 

50 

13:10 

493 

13:17 

93 

13:20 

87 

5:14 

45 

2:25 

87 

3:21  

5:1-3  

287,408.  466 

88,  92 

5:5 

85 

8 

fS 

9 

67 

683 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Abraliaiuic  Covenant,  437-342. 
Achilles  Tatius,  298. 
Act  of  Toleration.  411,  429f. 
Affusion,  see  Baptism,  Act. 
Aged,  Homes  for,  GOO. 
Alford,   Dean.   400. 
Allen.   A.   V.   G..  413. 
Ambrose.    304.    313,    419,    420, 

044.  049. 
Amer.   Baptist  Home  Mission 

Society,  228,  578. 
Amer.       Baptist       Missionary 

Union,  162.  228. 
Amer.  Baptist  Publication  So- 
ciety. 228. 
American   Commentary,   493. 
Anabaptists.    141.    147.    154f., 

289.  327f.,  373.  374,  411,  417, 

421.   423,   424-429,   510,   511, 

513.  515,  527,  656. 
Andi'e\YS,  Samuel  J.,  488. 
Angel  of  the  Church,  81f. 
Anglican  Church,  see  Episcopal 

Church.  ■ 

Antony  of  Padua,  6507 
Apostles,  72-78. 

Va.  Gen.  Assoc,  159,  171. 
Apostolical  Constitutions.  313. 

507.  642,  643. 
Apostolical     Succession,     77f., 

278.  368,  386. 
Aquinas,     Thomas,     250.     322, 

323.  325,  351,  372. 

Canterbui-y,    144,    509. 

Roman  Catholic,  139. 
Archbishop  : 
Archippus,  89f. 
Armitage,  Thomas,  312,  420. 
Arnold  of  Brescia,  153,  422. 
Asbury,  Francis,  146. 
Associated  Charities,  604,  607. 


Associations.  178.  201,  224-227. 
Charleston,  160. 
General,   see   State  Conven- 
tions. 
Philadelphia,  160. 
Warren.  160,  164. 
Athanasius.   121,  315. 
Augustine,  316,   371,   372,  373, 

377,  419.  420,  649. 
Backus,  Isaac,  164. 
Baptism,  283-483. 
act,   292-358. 

meaning  of  word,  292-306. 

history,   307,   329. 

concessions,  330-342. 

objections,  343-358. 
agent,  359-394. 

Scripture,  361-369. 

Histoi-y,  369-378. 

Bap.  problem,  379-394. 
alien  immersion,  see  agent, 
design,  see  significance, 
controversies,   280-282. 
efRcac.v.  see  significance, 
essential,  416,  and  see  signi- 
ficance, 
household,  403,  404.  405,  409. 
irregular,  see  agent. 
-Tohn's,  361.  363.  399,  400,  401. 
lay,  378. 
mode,  see  act. 
obligation,  283-291. 
parties  to  it,  290f. 
prerequisite,  280,  527-530. 
recipients,  .395-461. 

Scr.  teaching,  395-409. 

History,   410-434. 

arguments  for  and  against 
infant  baptism,  436-461. 
significance,  4.51f.,  402-483. 

Baptist  view,  403-468. 


684 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


685 


Campbellite  aMcw.  478-483. 
Catholic  view.  4r,8f. 
Episcopal  view,  470-473. 
Lutheran  view.  473-475. 
Methodist  view.  477f. 
I'l-eshyterian     view,     475- 
477. 
subjects,  see  recipients. 
validity,  see  agent. 
Baptismal     regeneration,     see 
Baptism,  significance. 
Baptist  Churches.  l(!5-270. 
conformity  to  N.  T.,  105-184. 
constitution,  180,  103. 
co-operation.   224-230. 
denominational  life,  etc.,  218. 
divergencies     from     N.     T.. 

170-184. 
efficiency,  220. 
government,  IfiSf. 
independence,  150,  1G3,  109. 
officers,  170. 
organization,  18.5-inO. 
recognition,   100-202. 
relation  to  civil  government, 
see     Church     and     State, 
251-270,    508. 
relation  to  each  other.  172. 

217-230. 
relation  to  other  denomina- 
tions,  52,    and   see   Chris- 
tian union, 
relation  to  undenominational 

organizations,  247. 
unity,  210,  220. 
usurj)ati()n  of  power.  182f. 
Baptist  Conf(>ssions  of  Faith, 

15(>-1.58.   328.   375. 
Bajttist     ^Missionary     Society. 

1.58.  22S. 
Bai)tist  ])rinciples,  progress  of, 

140-104. 
Baptist   Schools,  592,598. 
foundation.  593f. 
ma  in  ten. •nice,    594ff. 
control.   7>'.MM't 
Baptist  succession,   150f..  380, 

302. 
Baptisteries,  311,  320f. 


Paptists,    American,    158ff. 

English,    289f.,    374f.,    513f., 
527. 

German,  see  Dunkards. 
open  communion.  513.  527, 
528-.5.30. 

Separate,  150,  Kil. 

Six  I'rinciple,  100. 
Bantizo.     202-300.     334,     337, 

345-352. 
Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  314. 
Basil,  the  Great.  304.  310. 
Beale.     (ed.    Semple's    Hist.), 

250. 
Bede,  Venerable,  319. 
Benedict.  C.  W.,  338. 
Berengar,  500. 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux.  310. 
Bingham,  .Tos('i)h.  100.  288.  312, 

313,  412,  413f.,  41.5,  410,502, 

505.  507,  512,  514.  51.5,  037. 
Bishop : 

local.    85f..    Ill,    117f.,    see 
Elder. 

Roman  Catholic.  139. 
Bismarck.  250. 
Blaurock,  Georg.  327. 
Bliss.    Dr.,    488.    400. 
Blount,    Richard,    370. 
Blunfs  Dictionary,  378. 
Boards.  578f. 
Brace.  C.  L.,  509. 
Bona  Ventura,  319. 
Brenner.  323.  333. 
Broadus,  John  A..  22.  487.  488, 

489. 
Brown.  C.  C,  380. 
Browne,  Robert.  148. 
Bucer.  ^Martin.  522. 
Bunyan.  .John.  514. 
Burkitt.  William.  399. 
Burrage.    II.    S..   312.   313-315. 

317.  318.  319.  .321.  322.  .323,. 

324.  327. 

Bushnell.  Horace,  444f..  4o6f. 
Calvin,    .John.    148.    259.    302, 

325.  32(5,  3:{4.  353,  374,  510, 
522,  524.  5S»i.  0.55. 

Cami)be]l.  Alexander,  480fT. 


686 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Cami)lji'llites,  i.j-t.  478-483,  530, 

531. 
Cardinals.  140. 
Carey,  William.  158,  268. 
Carson.  Alexander.  298. 
Catacombs.    320. 

Faith. 
Catbcart,  312. 

Cathecliisms.   see  Confessions. 
Catholif  Churc-h.  "Old,"  119. 
Catholic  Church.  Roman : 
baptism,    act.    322-325,    329, 
332f.,   353. 

agent,  372,  373,  377,  384. 
efficacy.   453f..   4(i8f. 
recipients.  417,  433.  452f.. 
450.  459. 
charities,  599f. 
co-operation  with.  241. 
development.     121-131.     135- 

139.     . 
education,  586f. 
hierarchy,  25.  139.  223. 
Indian  appropriations.  253. 
influence     of     Reformation, 

135. 
Lord's    supper.    504f.,    508f.. 
511f.,     515,     516,     519-521. 
531. 
worship.  639,  642f..  044.  047. 
051,  053. 
Chalmers.  Thos..  335. 
Charities.   598-009. 
definition.  598. 
denominational,  600-606. 
history.  598-000. 
public.  000-009. 
Roman  Catholic.  599.  000. 
State     and     Church.     209f.. 
000.  OOS. 
Charlemagne.  586. 
Choirs.  058.  00)9-071. 
Christian.    John   T..    290.    305, 

332.  335.  338.  353. 
Christian   Year,   651,   656. 
Christmas,  041. 
Chrysostom,  299,  305,  313,  310. 

419.  420.  507.  645. 
Chrystal,  James,  322,  336,452. 


"Church :" 

Baptist  use,  21-24,  247. 
Etymology,   17f. 
present  use.  18-20,  52f..  247. 
Church  authority,  26.  332  353* 

354.  368.  309.  384,  385. 
Church    buildings,    639,    647f 

605f. 
Church  of  England,  see  Epis- 
copal Church. 
Church,  "institutional."  548. 
Church  letters.  195.  190.  393. 
Church,  local.  39-44.  537f. 
constitution,  mode  of.  55f, 
definition,  18.  21-23.  538.  ' 
functions,  55-68,  110. 
government,  28f. 
independence.  51f..  OOf    110 

159,  393. 
location,  543. 
membership,  50f.,  544. 
one  in  each  city.  179. 
relation   to   other   churches 

01-07.  110. 
relation  to  civil  government, 
see  Church  and  State, 
relation  to  God    and    man, 

540-543. 
relation  to  ordinances.  278- 

280. 
i-elation  to  reforms.  611-615. 
relation  to  the  world.  67f., 

533f. 
unit  of  power,  537-554. 
working  force  of  the  king- 
dom. 535-549. 
working  for  Itself,  551-569. 
Church  members, 
culture.  557-560. 
discipline.  560-569. 
increase,  551-557. 
instruction.  188f..  673f. 
qualifications,   56f.,  557. 
reception.  57.  279.  556. 
Church  officers,  see  officers. 
Church  polity.  17-270. 
Baiitist  view,  21-24.  166-184. 
definition.  17.  20. 
historical  survey,  115-164. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


687 


iiiipoi'tance,  32-o."). 

New  Testament  survey.  3(5- 

lU. 
(i])]iusins  views,   24-31. 
riiurcli    ami    State.    r.T.     121. 
Ulf.,     104.     2.")1-27().     4C)()f.. 

r.n2.  000.  008. 

riiurcli  universal.  IS.  21.  4!tf.. 

110.  .-.r,7. 
CMi-cnnicision.  308. 
Clark.'.  A.,  338. 
f'leineiit.  of  Alexandria.  300. 
Clenicnt.  of  Home.   108.   llOf.. 

413. 
Clementine  Recognitions,  414. 
Clerk.  ir>0.  178.  102.  'ACk 
'Clo.se  Coninninion."*  r)20f..  and 

see    Lord's    Supper,    partiei- 

l)ants. 
Coke.  Thomas,  140. 
Colenian.  Lyman.  100.  037.  0.30. 
Committees,  102,  547.  r)07.  508. 
Communion,    485;    see    Lord's 

Suiijicr. 
Conant.  Tlios.  J.,  208-300,  304, 

3(15.  .".32.  340. 
Confessions   of   Faith. 

.\naOai)tist.  513. 

Anglican     Catechism.     454. 
47(>. 

Ajtostles'  Creed.  040. 

Ani.'sl.urir.    325.    454.    473f.. 
5-Jl. 

F.aj.tist.  150ff..  328.  375. 

I'uiiiiula   of  Concord.  522. 

Ilcidclljcri]:   Catechism.    .320. 
525. 

Helvetic.  .320.  .525. 

Luther's  Catechism.  326,521. 

Xew   Hampshire,  22. 

Philadelphia.    21.    1.57. 

Sou.   Rap.  Theol.  Sem.,  22f. 

Tetraiiolitan.   .522. 

Thirty-nine      Articles,      470. 
47.-!. 

Westminster.    1.5<;.   222    ,"'.35 
377. 
Confirmation.  118,  440. 
■Con,srre.2;ationalists.     21,      147, 


337.  432.  057. 
Constantine.     121.     320.     321, 

0.38.  040.  041 
Consubstantiation.  .521 -.524. 
Controversy.  272f..  280.  .502. 
Conyhe;\re  and   Howson,  .337. 
Co-o])erati()n   of   churches.   64, 

570.  .581  f..  507,  001  f..  00.5. 
Cote.  W.  N.,  311.  312,  313.318, 

:520f. 
Councils.    120f. :    see    Synods. 

P.a).tist.   107-200.  203-210. 

Elvira.  418. 

Laodicea.  514. 

Lateran,  516. 

Xeocjpsarea,  418. 

Xicjea.  120.  121  f..  0.38. 

Ravenna.  323f..  371. 

Toledo.  318. 

Trent.  135f..  222.  280.  ,324f., 
373.  377.  418.  .506f.,  512, 
510. 

Vatican.  1.38. 
Covenant.  100. 
Covenant  meeting.  531. 
Cranmer.  144.  444.  526. 
Creed.  lOOf. 
Crenier.  H..  205f. 
Cromwell.  Oliver.  420. 
Crosi»y.  Thomas.  312.  375. 
Curtis.  Thomas  F..  4.32.  457. 
Cyprian.  110.  31 8f..  370f..  411. 

412.  415.  41 7f..  450f..  042f. 
Cyril,  of  Jerus.ilem,  31,3.  315. 

507. 
Dagg.  .John  L..  437.  408. 
Dale.  .T.  W.,  .340.340. 
Dayton.  A.  C.  ,380f..  388f. 
Deacon.   04-00..   .540. 

American  Baptists.   158. 

duties.  04.  '.»<;.  112f..  101.  103. 
514f..   507.   0,(>3. 

(|ualilications.  05f. 

Rom.an  Catholic,   140. 
Deaconess,  0.5,  181. 
T>ictionaries.  Greek.  20.3-207. 
Did.ache.  108.  111.  112.  .-{(Ci.  313 

318.  642. 
Diocese.   123. 


68  8 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Dionysiiis.  of  Alexandia.  370. 
Disciples,  see  Campbellites. 
Disoii)line,   182.  189.  211.  213, 

nnoff. 

Disputes     between     churches, 

215. 
Dollin^er,  T.  von.  332.  453. 
Dnnkards.  275,  329. 
Easter,  (341. 
Ecclesia.  30-53. 
Education.  268f.,  585-598. 
Elder  of  the  Church,  84-94. 

American  Baptists.  158f. 

authority,  93f.,  112. 

liishop   (syn. ).  85f..  111. 

duties,  88.  112. 

election,  90. 

emolument,  92. 

functions,  87.   112. 

Old  Testament.  30.  99,  lOlf. 

ordination.  90,  91. 

pastor  (syn.),  86.  111.  158. 

plurality,  89f.,  112,  158,  171, 
179f. 

Presbyterian.  30f. 

ruling,  30,  89,  158. 

synago.cue.  103f. 

tenure  of  otlice,  91. 

term,  use  of,  84ff. 
Elizabeth.  Queen,  52G. 
Episcopacy,   111,   113,   117-119. 
Episcopalians.  25,  27,  143-145, 

104. 

baptism,  329,  330f..  377f., 
432.  440,  453,  459.  470-473, 
515. 

Church  and  State,  164. 

Lord's  Supper,  504,  .525, 
520f.,  531. 

worshij),  054-050. 
Erigena.  John   Scotus,  509. 
"Eucharist,"    330.    see    Lord's 

Snipper. 
Eusel)ius.  370.  639. 
Evangelists,  79f. 
Evangelization,  571-583. 
Exi)ediency,  27f.,  3.35,  353.  393. 
Evangelical  Alliance,  248. 
Extreme  unction,  512. 


Festivals   of  the   Church,    see 

seasons. 
Firmilian,  370. 
Foxe.  428. 

Francke,  A.  H.,  000. 
Friends,  see  Quakers. 
Froude,  240. 
Fusslin.  427. 
Gale,  John,  412.  415. 
General  Bajt.  Convention.  230. 
Gentile  element.  105f.,  629. 

Influence,  107f. 

institutions.  K)Of. 
Gibbons.    Cardinal,    .332,    453, 

4.54,  456. 
Gieseler,  18. 
Godet.  487,  488. 
"Governments,"  81. 
Greliel,  Conrad.  1.54.  327,  425. 
Greek   Church,   24.   128f..   130, 

133-135.    222.   305.    329.   433, 

509,  512,  515,  053. 
Gregory  I..  125,  127,  317,  318, 

038,    644f. 
Gregory  VIT..  128.  509. 
Gregory   Xazianzen,   310,   418. 

420. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  507. 
Grinnn.  C.  L.  AV.,  294. 
Guericke,   311.   637. 
ILackett.  IT.  B..  494. 
TTaimo,  509. 
Hall,  Robert,  514. 
Ilarnack,  84,  109,  334. 
ITarriss.  Samuel.  1.59,  171. 
Harvard  Universitv.  587f. 
Ilase.    311. 

Hatch,  Edwin,  107,  109. 
"Helps."   81. 
Henry  VIIT.,  143.  428. 
Henry  of  Lausanne.  153,  422. 
Henry,   IMatthew,  400. 
Hernias.  Shepherd  of,  108.  112, 

314,  414. 
Ilerzog,  369.  372ff..  410. 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  644. 
Ilildebrand.  see  Gregorv  VII. 
Hincmar,  319. 
Pliscox,    E.    T..   296,   332,   333, 


(JENEUAI.  INDEX. 


<589 


834.   a:'.o,   XM. 
1  lodge,  ('has..  877.  4:37f..  439f., 

4-18.  4."0.  474.  47r.-477.  524. 
linages,   480.   444.   448f. 
Hooper.  John,  147. 
Hospitals,  r>9r>.  (i07. 

'•Host,"  5or>.  r.ir>. 

Ilovey,  A..  4(50. 
Howell,  453.  459.  401. 
Tluluiiaier.    154.    .8'27,    424-426, 

510. 
Humanitarian     work     of     the 

Church.   571.   585-()15. 
Huss.  John.  517. 
Ignatius.  117,  119. 
Ignatius  Loyola,  135. 
Images,  052. 
Hmnersion.  see  Baptism,  act. 

alien,  see  Baptism,  agent. 

ol).ieclions  to,  348-358. 

trine,  see  Baptism,  act,  his- 
tory. 
In(1(>i)en(Ients,     see    Congvega- 

tinnalists. 
Infant  Bajttism,  see  Baptism, 

reci]iients.    895ff. 
Ingham,  899.  402.  405.  412,  415, 

487. 
Innocent  III..  129. 
Iniiuisition.  185. 
Trcnams.  lOS,  109.  815,  414,  500, 

041. 
Jefferson.    Thomas,    250. 
Jerome.  805,  419. 
Jerusalem : 

ratriarchate,  122. 

water  supply,  351f. 
Jeter,  J.  B.,  481. 
John  of  Damascus.  319. 
John  of  Leyden,  420. 
Johnson,  W.  B.,  389. 
Judaism  and  Christianity,  80, 

:'.1.  99f..  487-442. 
Julian.  299. 
Justin  Martyr.  90.  108,  112f., 

314.  414.  500,  515,  040,  045. 
Justinian.   (!47. 
Kendrick.  493. 
Kidd.  Benjamin,  538. 


Kingdom    of   (Jod.    re!:i1ion    to 

Ciiurch.  58(;f. 
Kirtley,   James  A.,  4(!8. 
Knapp,  C.,  377. 
Knox.  John,  433,  055. 
Krauth,  C.  P.,  439,  454,  478-475, 

522f. 
Lamheth  articles  on  Christian 

I^nion,  233. 
Lanfranc.  509. 
Lard,  M.  E..  481  ff. 
Leander  of  Seville,  317. 
Lecky.  W.  E.  H.;  599. 
Leo  I..  124.  419. 
Lihanius.  299. 
Liddcdl   &   Scott.   87.   294.   290, 

44:?f. 
Liddon.  Canon,  337. 
Lightfoot,  John,  384,  335. 
Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  28,  109,  111. 
Tiiterature,     early     (^hi-istiau, 

108-113,310. 
Liturgy,    514.    515. 

«'!42f..  040f.,  050f., 
Tiord's  Sni>per.  275, 
almses.  490f.,  510. 
(il/dpc.  510. 
C;ilvinistic  theory, 
church  duty,  280. 
consubstanitiation,  521-024. 
design,  see  meaning, 
edicac.v,  see  meaning, 
elements,  492,  515. 
\       fretinencv,     491f.,    499.    515^ 
\  581. 

individual  cup.  532. 
meaning,    500,   503-511,   519- 

527. 
observance,  514-517.  030-533. 
open  conuniuiion.  528ff. 
participants.  282,  499,  511-514, 
527-530. 
pt>rpetuity,   491. 
prereiiuisites.   513,   527,   530, 

581. 
presence  of  Christ,  50(i-511, 

523,  525. 
restriction,  see  prerequisite- 
ritual.  514f.,  531. 


017.  0.35, 
053.  054f. 
484  ff. 


->22.  524f. 


■«90 


GENERAL  INDEX, 


sacrificial  conception,  504f. 

symbolic  character,  503f. 

transubstantiation.         508f., 
519-521. 

unleavened  bread,  532. 

"imfermented  wine,"  532. 

withholding  cup.  516f. 

Zwinglian  doctrine,  522,  525, 
527. 
Luther,  Martin,  133,  141,  325f., 

333,  373,  510,  523,  58G,  656. 
Lutherans,  28,  141,  333f.,  377. 

432.  433,  486,  439,  442,  446, 

454.    469,   473-475,   511,   515, 

521-523,    571.    654-656. 
Macaulay,  430. 

McClintock    and    Strong.    En- 
cyclop.,  378. 
Madison.  James.  255,  256. 
Manly.  Jr..  Basil,  23. 
Mantz.  Felix.  154,  327,  425. 
Mass,  486,  505f. 
Mass.     Domestic     Missionary 

Society.  162. 
Menno,  Simons,  154,  327,  425. 
Mennonites,  154,  327. 
Messengers,  81. 
Methodists,    22,    145-147,    223, 

329,  337ff..  378,  432,  433,  436, 

439.  446.  454.  456,  477f.,  527, 

528,  656. 
Metropolitans,   122f. 
TNIeyer.    302.   334,    442. 
Milan,  324. 
Missions,  571-579. 

district,   576f. 

foreign.   578f. 

home,    577f. 

local,  576. 

state,  577. 
Moehler,  469,  520. 
Monasteries,   586.  599. 
Monasticism,  130f. 
Monuments,  311. 
Munzer,  Thos.,  424,  426. 
Music,    624,    630f.,    632,    643f., 

650f.,  655f.,  658,  669f. 
IMational  Educational  Society, 

229. 


Neander,  109,  311,  333. 
Newman,  A.  H.,  154,  312,  416, 

417.  420,   421,   423.   510. 
Nicholas  of  Rome,  129. 
Novatian,  319. 
Oehler,  621,  620. 
Officers,  69-96. 

classification,    71f. 

difficulties,  70f. 

doubtful,  81f. 

election,  58,   110. 
Old  Testament : 

baptism,  379f. 

congregation,  99,  lOOf. 

elders,  100. 

worship,  618-627. 
Olshausen,  333. 
Ordinances.  271-533. 

controversies.  280-282. 

etymology,  273f. 

keepers,  277-280. 

number,  275. 

purpose  and  meaning,  276f. 

sacraments,  273. 
Ordination,  118.  204-211. 
Organ,  650.  656,  658. 
Origen,  415,  642. 
Orphanages.  599f. 
Osgood.  Prof.  H.  S.,  327. 
Pfedobaptists.    328.    329,    332, 

339,  377,  381,  382,  384,  389, 

409,     412,     416.     431,     432f., 

436-461.  527. 
Paintings,  311, 

Papacv,    development,     124- 

128,  129,  131,  136,  138,  139, 

140. 

election.  140. 

infallibility.  138. 
Passover,    487-492,    502,     522, 

532. 
Pastor,  86-88,  555,  567,  668f. 
Patriarch,  124f. 
Patriarchates,  122-124. 

Alexandria,  122. 

Antioch,  122. 

Constantinople,  122.  127, 128, 
129. 

Jerusalem,  122. 


GENEKAL INDEX. 


691 


Moscow.   132f. 

Konio,  122,  124,  127.  129. 
Personal   work,   ."ioo,   r>00,   570, 

r.70f. 
Peter  of  Bruys.  153.  421  f. 
Peter  of  Clugny,  421. 
Peter  the  Great,  134. 
Photins,    129. 
Pliny.  G40,  044. 
Plutarch,    299. 
Poindexter,  A.  M.,  392. 
Polybius,   298. 

Polycarp,  108,  110.  Ill,  112. 
Pope,  see  Papacy. 
Porter.  J.  J.,  380,  391. 
Pouring,  see  Baptism,  act. 
Prayer-meetiugs,  583. 
Preaching.  020,  030,  G31f.,  040, 

049.  055,  057.  075f. 
Presbyterians,  27,  29.  30.  142f, 

154.    222,    329,    334ff.,    377, 

432f,  4.30,  445,  453,  450,  475- 

477,  5(H,  512,  515,  524f..  525, 

527,  055,  050. 
Prophets,  78f.,  024. 
Quakers,  289,  329. 
Rabanus  Maurus,  319. 
Radbertus,  508. 
Ratramnus,  508. 
Reform,   see  Church,   relation 

to. 
Reformed  Churi-h.  see  Presby- 
terian. 
Reforms,  009-015. 
Bice,  N.  L..  481. 
Riddle.  017.  041,  044,  048. 
Ridley,  520. 
Ritsohl,  109. 
Ritual,  see  Litiu'gy. 
Robinson.  Robt..  312.  322,  412, 

41.5. 
Rosser,  4.38f. 
Rufinus,  415. 
Sadolet,  James,  324. 
Schaff.  129.  311.  321.  .3.3.5.  374, 

415.   505.  500,  .507.  508.  509, 

519.  522.  .52.5.  (Ul. 
Schmidt,   C,  599. 
Schools : 


Baptist.   592-.59S. 

denominational.  587-592. 

denominational  control,  591, 
590f. 

wState  schools,  587,  590,  592. 
Scriptiu'e  authority.  173.  357. 
Seasons,  sacred,  040-042.  051f, 
050. 
Sects,  131,  151-154,  232,  420ff. 

Albigensians,  1.52ff. 

Anabaptists,  see  sep.  entry. 

Arnoldists,  153. 

Bogomiles,  152. 

Brownists,   148.         • 

Cathari,  152. 

Donatists,  152.  371,  420. 

Henricians,   15.3. 

Lollards.  423. 

Montinists,   1.52,   371. 

Munster.    Anabaptists.    154, 
35(1,  420f. 

Novatians.  152.  371. 
Piwlobaptists.  see  sep.  entry 

Paulicians.  1,52.  420. 

Petrobrusians.  1.53.  421. 

Vaudois.   1.53. 

Waldenses,  153,  423. 

Sees,  apostolic.  123. 
Semple,    Hist.    Va.   Bap.,    159, 

250. 
Septuagint : 

ecrlesia.  38.  100. 

ftinwfjoffe,  100. 
Shedd,  440. 

Shield.s,  Chas.  W.,  233,  235. 
Smith  and  Cheetham,  312. 
Smyrna.  Epistle.  108.  110.  119. 
Societies.  lOOf.,  183,  545.  583. 
Society.  I'elation  to  the  Church 
535ff. 

Soul-winning,     see     Evangeli- 
zation  and   Personal   Work. 
Southern   Baptist  Convention. 

102.  228f.  2.34.  578. 
Southern  Baptist  Theol.  Semi- 
nary. 22,  229. 
Sprinkling,  331,  and  see  Bap- 
tism,  act. 
Stanley.   Dean,  305,  323,  331^ 


1)1  2 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


85ntf..  4i:',.  41(5.  420.  455f.,  450. 

502,  508,  52Gf. 
State  Convention,  162f.,  227. 
Steitz:    3(>0,    3T2tf.,     373,     374, 

41(5. 
Stephen  of  Rome,  370f. 
Stephen   III.,   322. 
Storch.  Nicholas,  424. 
Stourdza,  Alex,  de,  305. 
Strabo,  299. 
Stronir.    A.    H.,    390,   432,   437, 

459,  4('58. 
Stnart.   M.,   337. 
Suffi-Qigans,  13D. 
Summers,  T.  O.,  378,  438,  443, 
447.  459f..  478.  528. 
Sumter,   Discussion,   380,   391, 

392. 
Sunda.y,  (540f. 
Synagogue,   102-104. 

influence,  104. 

officers.  102. 

worship.  103. 
Synods,  120 ;  see  Councils. 

Ancyra,  120. 

Aries,  120. 

Carthage,  371. 

Elvira,    120. 

Holy  Synod.  134f. 
Taxation  of  chiu'cli  property, 

205ff. 
Teachers,  80,  159. 
Telugus,  303,  352. 
Temperance,  610,  612,  614. 
Tertullian.  304.  315,  317.  318, 

369f.,  415.  450,  640. 
Thayer,  J.  H.,  294,  297. 
Theological  Seminaries.  589. 
Transubstantiation,      506-509, 

519-521. 
Triennial  Convention.  162. 
Trine  immersion,  see  Baptism, 

act. 
Tucker,  H.  H.,  468. 
Tunkers,  see  Dunkards. 
Tyerman,  L.,  338. 
TTnion,  Christian,  231-250. 

Baptist  position,  242ff. 
Unitarians,  588. 


Universities.  586,  587,  589. 
Tedder,   H.   C.   312.   328.   427, 

431.   432,   513. 
Yirginia : 

Declaration  of  Rights,  255. 
General  Assembly,  255. 
General     Association,     159, 
161..  163. 
Virgin  Mary,  541. 
Waldo.   Refer,   153. 
Wall.   Wm.,  336,  412-416,  418, 
419.  420,  422.  428,  451,  453, 
459.  513. 
Waller,  J.  L.,  388. 
Ward,  Lester  F.,  236. 
Waterland,  378,  471tf. 
Wayland.  Francis.  389,  441. 
Wesley,  John,  145.  302,  338. 
Wesleyans.  see  Methodists. 
Whately.  455. 
Whitby,  399. 
Whitsitt.  W.  H.,  375. 
Wiclif,  155. 
Wilke,  294,  297. 
Wilkes,  L.  B.,  478-480. 
William  &  Mary  College,  587f. 
Wilkinson,  W.  C,  437,  441. 
Williams,  Roger,  376. 
Willoughby,  Prof.,  259. 
Women : 

baptism  by,  373,  374. 
public  speaking,  182. 
societies,  228,  229,  583. 
World  Alliance,    World    Con- 
gress   (Baptist),  230. 
Worship,  514,  560,  581,  617-676 
elements.   627,    634,    642,ff., 

664. 
etymology,  61 7f. 
faults   and   difficulties,    661- 

671. 
New  Testament.  627-635. 
Old  Testament,  618-627. 
Place  and  Power,  661-672. 
Young   Men's   Christian   Asso- 
ciation.  248.   249. 
Young  People's  Societies,  229. 
Zwingli.    142,    154,    325,    425, 
51  Of..  524,  525. 


Date  Due 


PRINTED     IN  U.  S.  A. 


